April june bulletin 2017 venezuela embassies in africa

Bulletin volume 5, issue 2 - APRIL-JUNE 2017

Africa for Africans

CHINA IN AFRICA: Building a Different World CUBA: The Jewel of the Crown SIRYA: Geopolitical Conflict PALESTINE: 50 Years of Occupation

Hugo Chávez – Revolutionary Internationalist

Bolivarian Government of Venezuela

Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs,Office of the Deputy Minister for Africa

Embassies of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Africa

EDITORIAL Behind the conflicts always lie some structural reasons that cause and amplify them. The great appetite for natural resources of centers of power generates wars in which the civilian population is the main victim.

CONTENTS 1) Editorial 2) Africa for Africans in 2017 3) When Africa wakes up 4) 5 ambitious infrastructure projects that China wants to "shake" the world economic order with.

5) Palestine: 50 years of occupation between the Bible and the Security Council 6) War in Syria: Crossroads Geopolitics 7) Trump to reverse Obama openings to Cuba under the false flag of Human Rights 8) Members of European Parliament demand the National Assembly to return to the table of dialogue with the Venezuelan Government 9) Public Lecture at the University of Laikipia: 10) Solidarity with Venezuela 11) Non Aligned Movement and the Bandung as Relevant Today as Ever: 12) World leaders condemn Trump's decision to quit Paris climate deal 13) Hugo Chávez – Revolutionary Internationalist

Africa and the Middle East have for decades been key to the existence of the developed World. The mining of its huge reserves of minerals, gas and oil produces confrontations not only between the countries of these regions, but also between the great international powers.

In the face of this panorama, attempts are being made to change the prevailing world order under initiatives of new actors, in new associative and group conformations, highlighting the cardinal roles that are in play and should continue to. Two of the five permanent members of the security council of the United Nations, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, the first, the largest country on the planet, and the second, the most populous country in the world, in strategic alliance are forming a new international order of extraordinary influence and with unsuspected repercussions, not only with regional scope in the Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe, but with links, in particular, with the countries of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

Venezuela was one of the first coutry to rise its voice for building this "Multipolar World", reaffirming our infinite faith in the human race, today thirsty for peace and justice to survive as a species.

In this context, Venezuela will remain open, despite the economical and ideological war that it is subjected to, to meet the challenges of this historic time.

Intensely and passionately we will follow in the effort to disseminate the ideas of human fulfillment in peace and freedom Recalling the words of President Hugo Chávez "we will not rest our arms nor our souls to save mankind".

Embassies of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the World

Africa for Africans in 2017 In southwestern Ghana, in the small coastal village of Nkroful, there is a mausoleum in honor of the pan-African and anti-colonial leader Kwame Nkrumah. On it one can read an epitaph that says: "I am certain that death will not be able to extinguish the flame that I have waged in Ghana and in Africa.

Long after my death, the flame will be lit, shining and guiding the whole world. " In some corner of the continent, in the depths of the continent, that flame is still burning; You just have to find it.

country, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf ends her decade of mandate. The main candidates are the exfutbolista George Weah and the second woman with more weight in the national policy: Jewel Howard. But without a doubt the elections that are going to mark this 2017 are those that will be celebrated in Angola. The year 2016 ended with the news that President J. Eduardo Dos Santos terminates his mandate; after 38 years at the head of the Angolan Government, the septuagenarian gives way to new politicians. The main candidate is the current Defense Minister, Juan Lorenzo. Other elections planned for the end of the year are those of Democratic Republic of Congo which is of utmost importance for regional stability.

During 2016, 17 of the 54 countries that make up the African continent held presidential elections, excluding local elections, constitutional referenda and parliamentary elections. Of these 17 processes, 60% were carried out with transparency and in a totally peaceful way. The cases of Ghana, with the victory of Akufo-Addo, or Cape Verde illustrate the success of the 2016 electoral processes.

In the Horn of Africa in February 2017 the Somali elections took place, being elected as President, Somalia's former Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi very well known as “Farmajo’’, by a vote of the National Assembly. Farmajo, 54, with dual Somali and US citizenship, won 184 votes in the second round of voting beating other two candidates, including the former head of state, former President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. Second with 97 votes and avoided a third vote making him the winner.

In recent years, political life in sub-Saharan Africa has been marked by increased social participation in electoral processes. The use of new technologies has served to show the world that the flame of change is still alive on the continent.

Examples like #ThisFlag in Zimbabwe allowed us see the potential that African civil society has in putting in check those who believed they were untouchable.

The Year of Elections

The victory of Farmajo, which was already celebrated throughout the country and in the diaspora, and recognized by the entire international community, particularly the western powers, was unexpected since its candidacy did not count on support from influential foreign countries.

The year 2017 has been especially marked by the struggle to ensure the transparency of the elections that have been and are to come. Elections are scheduled for Kenya and Rwanda. President Uhuru Kenyatta is back seeking another term as president. Tensions over the economic crisis, refugee problems and the threat of terrorist groups have made Kenyan elections the center of attention for the entire African continent. In Rwanda, President Paul Kagame will revalidate his position for the third time.

In addition, changes in the presidency in the African Union (AU) and the incorporation of Morocco after more than three decades outside the organization have raised a serious debate among the member countries. Some, like Robert Mugabe, among others, have criticized hard his incorporation.

Two other elections that are eagerly awaited are those of Liberia and Angola. In the West African 1

The question of Moroccan membership should not be overlooked by the political implications behind it: as the opponents pointed out, the Sahrawi issue is abandoned and surrendered to the wishes of the western metropolis.

The joint operation was launched from neighboring Senegal. The actions of the countries in the region to end local acts have highlighted the determination of African countries to defend democratic values and manage their own crises. The year 2017 is seen as a key year to strengthen the union of governments and to test the capacity of regional organizations to act in defense of democratic balance.

The importance of the elections in 2017 also lies in the fact that the change in the international scene will not favor sub-Saharan Africa. The pressure that Washington has been exerting on some African presidents accused of "dictators" does not seem to be maintained and, with a Europe concerned about its own existence and its eastern neighbor, the possibility of seeing an international complaint of electoral manipulation is reduced.

In this context, this year puts to test the capacities of organizations such as ECOWAS not only in maintaining the stability of some countries in particular, but also as a forum for dialogue and conflict resolution throughout West Africa.

For this reason, the elections will test African social movements and the struggle for democracy. The polls call for change in 2017 but, without anyone to denounce or pressure to avoid manipulation from outside, the ball is totally in the hands of the people, state institutions, regional organizations and social movements of the continent.

Former Gambian President Yahya Jammeh at one of the Cedeao Summits in Senegal (2012)

On the other hand, it is worth noting the opening of the train that links Addis Ababa with Djibouti and how it will affect the Ethiopian and regional economy. The train line supposes the definitive opening of the African country to the commerce with the Red Sea. With 750 km of track, Ethiopian exports are likely to increase in coming years. 2017 will be important to see how this new route affects regional trade.

An African year This year is emerging as a turning point for sub-Saharan Africa as the international landscape provides an interesting opportunity for the continent's governments. The new White House Administration seems to have no greater interest in the area than to know how to place it on the map: Trump has not spoken about US African policy because it almost seems to be non-existent. On the other side we find a Europe facing a serious internal crisis that will not allow it to be aware of what happens in the south of the Sahel. In addition, Moscow, Westminster, Ankara and the refugee crisis already have enough headaches for Brussels to develop a deep policy for the African continent.

The democratization of the Gold Coast Elections in the region will be the central pillar of the 2017 policy. The year began with the intervention of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) forces in Gambia to pressure Yahya Jammeh's government to accept Result of the elections.

2

Sub-Saharan Africa may find itself at a time when it must take the reins of its destiny. If democratic and social movements are organized correctly, we can witness a change of direction. But the situation is delicate: neither Europe nor United States will be focused on lobbying the self-governing governments and China has never been able to interfere in the internal affairs of its trading partners.

It is therefore essential that Africans become aware of the delicate situation in which they find themselves, but at the same time how beneficial they can be. It is time to start fanning the flame.

By Eduardo Saldaña

The views expressed here are the author’s own

.....................

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ratifies the paths of friendship and cooperation with the countries of Africa, consolidated

by President Nicolás Maduro and planted with deep love for the commander Hugo Chávez Frías, who always affirmed that the African continent was the true Mother Country, Of peoples who fight for their freedom and independence with courage and determination.

3

Letter From Europe:

When Africa wakes up Europeans must accept that they need immigrants and keep in mind that the African economy will not always be a sleeping giant

The social threat is like the flood of a river that is approaching, unstoppable, to an increasingly fragile dam. In Africa there is roughly one billion people .The number is expected to rise to 2.4 billion in 2020, mostly young people and adolescents. The UN predicts that in the coming decades, at least half a million will try to reach Europe each year. On the other side, there are 700 million Europeans, which will be approximately 600 million by 2050, with an average age of 50 and a large component of centenarians.

The immediate economic opportunity is the one offered by a market of one billion people in our borders, of which 600 million have no electricity. If we can get it, maybe with solar panels, how many refrigerators can we sell them before the Chinese do it?. To chase away the threat and seize the opportunity, we must channel the river. To know the great challenge of this century that Europe is facing.

The first thing is to accept that the Europeans need the immigrants. Today, in Europe, the monthly pension of a retiree is paid by four people of working age. With current demographic trends, in 2050, that proportion will be 2 to 1: 38 million workers and 20 million retirees in Italy, 41 million and 24 million in Germany, 24.4 million and 15 million in Spain.

Either the workers increase or the contributions are doubled or the pensions are cut.

Germany, which received an unprecedented number of immigrants in 2015, the number of companies employing refugees has tripled in a year.

In the first quarter of 2016, they were only 7%; and at the beginning of 2017, 22%. They are practice contracts but fundamentally, it is a principle. Is it Merkel's merit? Those who came to Germany came mainly from the Middle East and especially from the Syrian middle class: engineers, architects, skilled professionals, fleeing from war and from Assad. In Africa, however, the middle and privileged classes stay there, and those who arrive on Sicilian beaches come from rural areas.

In Germany the number of companies that work for refugees has tripled in a year With these data it should be easy to do a realism exercise. The migratory wave is a historical phenomenon that will not stop on the Greek or Italian beaches, much less in the Libyan. Not even for security reasons. Experiences in France, Belgium and England show that the main security threat is in the second generation. That is to say, it has to do with integration rather than with acceptance. It is clear that, if it is a historical phenomenon, a long-term solution is needed, which envisages Europe and Africa beyond 2025.

That is a quantitative problem, but also a qualitative one. The outlook is favorable: on the African continent, today, there is more peace than war, and there are strong indications of a spontaneous economic takeoff. It is the ideal situation to launch a kind of Marshall Plan with which Europe will also guarantee its future. The idea was raised a few days ago at the G20 meeting in Berlin, but it has only materialized to just a promise.

The African situation is suitable for Europe to implement a kind of Marshall Plan.

4

Africa is the main recipient of development aid from EU countries: more than 140,000 million Euros between 2013 and 2017, almost 40% of total aid. Before deciding whether it is a lot or a little money, you have to understand what it is for. If the aim is to filter not only the number of people who migrate to the other side of the Mediterranean, it seems logical to think of training programs financed

by Europe. If our countries continue to lose population and need plumbers and nurses, training them on the ground can be an alternative route for emigration, more attractive than the desperate crossing in a deflated boat.

But the most important thing is private investment. In 2012, European companies invested 11.6 billion dollars in Africa; in 2015, 30.9 billion.

Although they are misleading figures, because they include those dedicated to oil prospecting and because, of those 30,000 million, 25 were invested in South Africa, the African Switzerland. A pity, because private investments can contribute more than public investments, and are the main trigger for an increasingly visible economic development. For the coming years, the IMF forecasts growth of 3.5-4% and investments of 20% of GDP. The African economy will not always be the sleeping giant, and Europe must dare to be present when it wakes up.

Maurizio Ricci is an economic and environmental analyst at La Repubblica.

.....................

www.elpais.com

The views expressed here are the author’s own

Chavez invested energies in the recognition of the continent as a strategic partner. Over the years, he toured countries - including South Africa, Mozambique, Algeria, Libya, Mali, Gambia, Benin and Angola - never visited before by a Venezuelan president.

In line with his support for the BRICS group was Chavez's advancement of South-South solidarity worldwide. To do this, the Venezuelan president established greater bonds with the African Union in an effort to bring Latin America and Africa closer together.

In 2006, President Chåvez participated in the first Summit of Heads of State and Government of South America and Africa (ASA). The summit encompasses the participation of 66 countries of the two continents – 12 from South America and 54 from Africa, which corresponds to about a third of the Member States of the United Nations, with a combined GDP of US$ 6 trillion in 2011, and a total population of more than 1.4 billion people, with the objective of establishing a political dialogue and cooperation platform between the two regions which share deep historical, cultural, and human ties.

5

5 ambitious infrastructure projects that China wants to "shake" the world economic order with.

It is a colossal and expensive infrastructure plan with which China wants to expand and deepen its global influence.

"It is an ambitious and unprecedented effort," said the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim on the plan China has to "shake" the world economic order. The initiative already has funding of almost US $ 210 billion, according to official figures.

"We hope to unleash new economic forces for global growth, build new platforms for global development and rebalance globalization so that humanity is brought closer to a community of common destiny," Chinese President Xi Jinping said.

Presented by Xi in September 2013, the New Silk Road includes high-speed railways, ports and logistics centers with which China intends to emulate the ancient route that commercially and culturally united East and West about 2,000 years ago.

He described the dimension and purpose of the public works expansion project known as New Silk Road, with which his country is trying to improve the connections between Asia and other regions of the world.

Although in theory the aim of the intercontinental infrastructure investment project is to increase economic integration between Europe, Asia, Africa and other regions, some Western countries believe that what the Chinese government is looking for is to expand its influence beyond the Economic realm.

It was during the first Co-operation Forum of the New Silk Road that ended on Monday in Beijing, attended by around thirty world leaders, including the presidents of Russia, Vladimir Putin, of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and representatives from Latin America with leaders of Argentina, Mauricio Macri and of Chile, Michelle Bachelet. "The new Silk Road": the trade corridor with which China wants to extend its influence to the Middle East and Africa.

According to Carrie Gracie, the BBC's Chinese affairs analyst, both oil and gas pipelines across Central Asia and the ports of Pakistan and Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean could serve the Asian giant for military purposes in the future.

Financing of the New Silk Road US $ 40 billion Starting capital of the New Silk Road Fund, funded

by Chinese banks (February 2015) • US $ 100 billion. Capital provided by the Asian Investment Bank (April 2015) • US $ 69.5 billion .The Chinese government will contribute US $ 14.5 billion. Two other Chinese banks will finance the other US $ 55 billion (May 2017)

In BBC World we are presenting to you 5 great works that the government of Beijing is undertaking to revive the Silk Road.

1. China-Europe freight transport Currently, China already operates about 20 lines of freight trains that directly connect the country with European cities such as London, Madrid, Rotterdam or Warsaw.

6

ended up opting for Chinese companies.

Cost: US $ 5.9 billion 3. China-Pakistan Corridor Taking advantage of Pakistan as one of its historical allies, China will invest in the country and help in the development of the port of Gwadar in the Arabian Sea. The idea of both countries is to become the Pakistani version of the southern port of Shenzhen, known as the “Chinese Silicon Valley."

The China-Madrid route has been in operation for over a year and it is the longest rail service in the world. Now, the aim of Xi Jinping's government is to optimize this network and make it a faster -although more costly- alternative to the traditional shipping of Chinese products.

The works of the new high-speed train, which will link the 7,000 kilometers that separate Beijing from Moscow in 30 hours –against the five days that the journey lasts at the moment- are expected to be completed by 2025, according to the Russian state-owned OAO Russian Company Railways.

The execution of this project will give China an outlet to the sea without the need for its products to pass through the ever-conflicting Strait of Malacca, where pirates operate and the weather is unfavorable.

Behind this great initiative is China's intention to consolidate itself as a global trading power, says Carrie Gracie, the BBC's analyst.

Cost: US $ 242 billion 2. Train network in Asia In this section there are two major future projects: • The Pan-Asiatic Network China plans to connect the southern city of Kunming with Vientiane, the capital of neighboring Laos, and with the Burma railway network.

The project includes the expansion of the Kakarorum Road, one of the highest in the world connecting China with Pakistan.

Total cost: US $ 55 billion 4. Port of Colombo For China, transportation on the New Silk Road will not only be terrestrial. President Xi Jinping also considers key development of seaports. Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka, is a priority for Beijing.

Although paralyzed with the change of government on the island, more recent political negotiations close to India have allowed the project to continue and have already resumed works.

Cost: US $ 1.4 billion 5. Projects in Africa China is already building the railroad that will link the two main cities of Kenya: the capital, Nairobi, and Mombasa, off the coast of the country.

If it can carry out the work and start up other projects planned in Thailand, Cambodia or Vietnam, it could form a pan Asian network linking the country to the rest of South East Asia.

Cost: US $ 7 billion (only the high-speed train between Kunming and Vientiane) • High speed in Indonesia The JakartaBandung railway will be Indonesia’s first high-speed train and will help improve connections between the capital of the archipelago and one of the main economic centers of Java.

This project is part of the future transport network of East Africa, which will connect the cities of Kenya with the capitals of Uganda (Kampala), South Sudan (Juba), Rwanda (Kigali) and Burundi (Bujumbura).

Although several Japanese companies also aspired to get the project, the Indonesian government 7

A network that will connect the country with other African capitals such as Addis Ababa in Ethiopia.In fact, China has already launched a train linking the Ethiopian capital with the coastal city of Djibouti, the capital of the country located in the Red Sea where Chinese companies are building a maritime logistics center.

"This is an expansion of naval power to protect China's trade and regional interests in the Horn of Africa." That is what expanding powers often do, and China learned the lessons of the British Empire 200 years ago, " he concludes. www.bbc.com

The views expressed here are the author’s own

"It is a huge strategic development," Peter Dutton, a professor of strategic studies at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, told The New York Times.

.....................

Chávez clearly saw China as a crucial partner in the struggle for a new world, visiting six times over the course of his presidency and forging close economic, diplomatic and political relations. On his first trip, in 1999, he expressed his admiration for the Chinese economic model of market socialism, declaring: “We are witnessing the triumph of the Chinese revolution.” The Chinese model, with the state controlling the commanding heights of the economy whilst encouraging regulated private enterprise for less crucial areas, has played an important role in informing Venezuela’s own economic policy over the last 15 years.

Celebrating the emergence of China as a major world power, Chávez pointed out the fundamental difference between the role of China – which has developed through its own diligence and persistence – and the colonialist/ imperialist powers, who built their wealth on the basis of plunder, genocide, coups, terror and exploitation. “China is large but it’s not an empire. China doesn’t trample on anyone, it hasn’t invaded anyone, it doesn’t go around dropping bombs on anyone.” Chávez’s successor, Nicolas Maduro, follows up on this point: “China practises international relations on the basis of equality. It shows that, just starting the 21st century, it is possible to build a new world power without the imperialist practice of colonisation and domination.”

8

Palestine:50 years of occupation between the Bible and the Security Council The UN Security Council again gave Israel a last-ditch call last December to deny legitimacy to Jewish settlements built 50 years ago in occupied Palestinian territories after the Six-Day War. Israel responded shortly after announcing the construction of more than 6,000 homes in East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements. In the territory between the Jordan River and the Green Line setting borders in 1967, some 400,000 Israelis have been installed in 131 "authorized" sites and another 97 declared "illegal" by the Cabinet itself, although the international community does not recognize any of them.

"The social and economic unrest and personal and family problems are the main causes that push young people and adolescents to take a knife, even if they are aware that they can die," summarizes a commander, whose name cannot be cited for security reasons, not mentioning the Israeli occupation at any time. "Nothing is going on here because our soldiers are everywhere," Lieutenant.

Nati Keres of the Benjamin Brigade said before beginning a patrol on Route 60, the route that runs through the West Bank from north to south. From the hill overlooking the Liaison and Military Coordination Center at Beit El and the checkpoint towards the Palestinian city, this young officer asserts that his mission is to maintain stability, regardless of political decisions.

These settlements, regardless of the qualification granted them by the Hebrew State.

Another 200,000 settlers reside in the eastern part of the Holy City, which was annexed in 1980 by the Hebrew State. In recent months, El PaĂ­s has toured some of the Israeli enclaves in occupied territory.

In an office of the headquarters of the Benjamin Brigade of the Israeli Army barracks, in Beit El, at the military base near the access checkpoint north of Ramallah, an intelligence officer attempted to explain the causes of the wave of violence that began in October which killed 43 Israelis, 257 Palestinians - two-thirds of whom were killed by security forces when Number of colonies Population of in miles Israel they were colonies considered attackers - and 6 foreigners.

After a short tour in an armored vehicle equipped with a computer and communications system, with screens showing the images taken by the cameras on the road, the lieutenant stops at one of the entrances to the Palestinian village of Beitin. "We had to close this step with concrete blocks because groups of young people stoned the colonists' vehicles," he says, along with one of the cement watch towers that line the road.

Population of CIS Jordenia

Settlements of Israelis in occupied territories Authorized by the Government of Israel

other citizens Palestinians

9

Not Authorized

The platoon soldiers guarding the fort have not moved from their posts in a week, most of them from Orthodox communities or Jewish settlements.

"There is no danger now," says the Israeli officer, with the rifle in his hand, "despite the fact that sometimes we are forced to act outside the area."

territory - Judea and Samaria in its biblical denomination - to claim its annexation. Netanyahu's government, considered the most right-wing in Israel's history, claims security reasons to continue to maintain control over occupied Palestinian territory, especially the border in the Jordan Valley.

Following the Oslo Accords of 1993, the Palestinian Authority maintains in theory exclusive control over the so-called area A of large cities and their surroundings - which represents 18% of the West Bank. Israeli troops continue to penetrate within its perimeter for security reasons. In another 21% of the territory, the Palestinians assume civilian management while the army is in charge of monitoring the so-called area B, which includes smaller settlements and in which there are no settlements.

About 400,000 Israelis have been stationed in the territory between the Jordan River and the Green Line. Another 200,000 settlers reside in the eastern part of the Holy City But two decades after settling on top of a hill hit by the wind, the settlers of Amona lost the battle in the Israeli Supreme Court before the Palestinian owners originating from the lands on which it sits. The final execution of the eviction of the 42 families, staged by more than 3,000 police last February was settled with minor incidents,

The remaining 61%, Area C, is entirely in the hands of Israel. The United Nations maps resemble a leopard skin patchwork where about three million Palestinians are surrounded and isolated by thousands of soldiers.

The troops protect some 400,000 settlers who have water supply seven times higher and have at their disposal the main roads.

The settler movement has significant political backers within the government - both in the Likud party (led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) as well as in the religious nationalist formation Jewish Home - has lobbied for the expansion of settlements and of the "legalization" of wild outpost such as Amona, which groups about 4,000 houses for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

This wild settlement was located near the recognized colony of Ofra (40 kilometers north of Jerusalem), at the foot of Mount Hazor, where biblical tradition places God's hands over of the earth to the Jewish people in the figure of Abraham.

Colonial Jewish nationalism openly invokes the divine origin of its historical link to the West Bank

as opposed to the pitched battle that had been fought in that same scenario in 2006, during the partial eviction of several houses of Amona."This is our land. Neither the UN nor anyone can take away what, according to our beliefs, God has given us, " said a spokesman for the settlers of Ofra during a visit made

by El Pais to the colony.

In 2016, after eight years of pressure from the administration of President Barack Obama to curb settlement expansion, 2,260 new housing estates were built in the West Bank, up 40 percent from the previous year, according to the Central Statistical Office Of Israel, in one of the most recent rebounds.

The quality of life, without the overcrowding and conglomeration in the overpopulated central region of Israel, coupled with the feeling of belonging to a united, homogeneous community, also count for 10

attracting many settlers to the West Bank, where housing is larger and cost up to ten times less than the large Israeli cities.

To try to compensate their voters in the settler movement after the eviction of Amona, the Government of Netanyahu approved, despite the opposition of Israel's attorney general, the first rule of application on Palestinian territory in the West Bank in half a century of occupation. The so-called law of regularization of the outpost received successive international condemnations for assuming the expropriation of some 800 hectares of private land where colonists' houses have been built without any official endorsement.

With the so-called regularization of these savage settlements, Israel is moving towards a de facto annexation of occupied territories on a collision course against the Fourth Geneva Convention: the right of war that protects the civilian population under military occupation. In another outpost west of

the settlement of Kfar Tapuah in the northern West Bank, settlers had to demolish several of their buildings and move from 19 caravans that had settled 19 years in front of the Palestinian villages of Jamain and Zeitun by order of the Israeli justice system.

The Israeli government has not yet put in place the expansion plans announced after Donald Trump's arrival at the White House. The Republican President has asked Netanyahu to contain the growth of the colonies to give a chance to the peace initiative he is trying to promote. In return, the Israeli prime minister has authorized - for the first time in two decades - the construction of a new settlement to relocate families expelled from Amona to Shilo, north of Ofra. www.internacional.elpais.com

The views expressed here are the author’s own

.....................

At a time, when the international community has turned a blind eye to Israel’s crimes towards the Palestinians, Venezuela has been one of the few nations who has the courage to openly condemn Israel for its crimes and express support for the Palestinian people. Most members of the non-aligned movement professed support for the Palestinian cause during the cold war and severed relations with Israel as they saw the Palestinian struggle as part of the same anti colonial struggle that they were a part of. Other commentators have stated that the non-aligned support for the Palestinian cause was not formed out of any genuine concern for the Palestinian people but as a way to align their foreign policy to that of the former Soviet Union for strategic purposes or to gather favor from several oil producing Arab nations for their development.

In 2008, Chavez publically compared Israel’s actions towards Palestinians and Lebanese to the holocaust stating that “Israel is doing what Hitler did, killing innocent children and entire families”.

Chavez went on to stop Venezuela from issuing tourist visas to Israelis and during a trip to Beijing called for Israel to be tried for genocide before the International Criminal Court.Chavez also visited Syria and made a joint statement with the Syrian government calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, abide by UN resolutions and for an end to double standards towards Israel internationally. Chavez also sent a Boeing 707 with 20,000 tons of humanitarian aid to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis caused in Lebanon and Palestine due to Israel’s aggressive actions.

Chavez has publicly criticized UN Secretary General Ba Ki Moon for not doing enough to strop repression by Israel. These statements and actions have made Chavez one of the most popular leaders in the Arab world and have led opposition political parties in Arab countries to urge their governments to copy Venezuela’s actions towards Israel. [ Venezuela previously had military ties with Israel but chose to abandon them in favor of standing up for Palestinian rights.

11

War in Syria: Crossroads Geopolitics By: Carlos HernĂĄndez

The Middle East has traditionally been a very unstable geopolitical area that wanders between aristocratic governments, dictatorships and other corrupt forms of government. In the same vein, there is a factor that warms the spirits even more, and it is the presence of huge reserves and production of crude oil and gas, generating more instability.

Since the start of the hydrocarbons industry, this region and its populations and nations have suffered from the presence of the Western powers who, in their endless desire for wealth and domination, have promoted military coups, coups d'ĂŠtat and corrupt governments of all kinds, which have oppressed the people and have generated a violent reaction comprised by the fundamentalist ideologies that are today protagonists in the world, for their barbarous methods of combat, better known since September 11 in the United States and more recently, with the deadly attacks carried out by militants of the Islamic State in Europe.

Since 2011, with the support of the Western secret services, various social outbursts have been promoted that overthrew governments throughout the Middle East. In this way, they fell by popular pressures and riots, manipulated in to accommodating the powers and the regimes of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, besides facilitating a civil war in Yemen and promoting a false popular uprising in Syria.

These movements were made in order to carry out a comprehensive geopolitical intervention in the region, with a view to ending the Chinese and Russian presence, in addition to surrounding the enemy number 1 of the USA from having a strong presence in the region: The Islamic Republic of Iran.

This is the context that precedes the emergence of a war in Syria where they fight in essence, mercenaries against the socialist, revolutionary and nationalist government of Bashar Al-Assad.

The intervention of soft blows and false popular uprisings promoted by the United States and its allies, did not work in Syria since the government (for decades in power) had maintained a good standard of living for the population. In its guidelines sovereignty was vital, so it did not give his nation to NATO or the interests of the United States nor to the International Monetary Fund.

In addition, in its city of Tartus, is a great base of the Russian navy that guaranteed the access to it and to the Mediterranean Sea which to lose is unimaginable. Of course Syria and Russia were always allies since the Cold War era, but these situations, coupled with the need of the economies of Europe and the United States. Not only for Syrian oil but for the project to cross a pipeline 12

from the Persian Gulf countries such as Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iraq to the Mediterranean or the Bosporus, formed their tragic fate when they put in the sights and involvements of the western powers.

Needless to say, the Syrian armed forces had let their training, doctrine and military equipment become obsolete for the new post-Cold War scenario and were not prepared to face asymmetric internal threats but were moderately prepared for a regular war with enemy potential which is the State of Israel and with whom it had lost the Golan Heights in the Yom Kippur War. This situation of confrontation with the Jews was in a stalemate because of the armed and technological superiority achieved by the Israelis, then it can be said that the defense and national security were in a lethargy promoted by the fragile balance of power for several decades.

The catastrophe of the Syrian conflict seems to have no end. Pain crosses the front lines. The attack on the convoy from Al Fua and Kefraya came 11 days after the toxic gas bombing of Jan Sheijun in nearby Idlib province, killing 87 civilians. The second deadliest chemical weapons attack in the conflict triggered the first US intervention against the regime: launching missiles at the Shayrat airbase.

Entry of Prohibited weapons to attacks on civilians torn from their homes, the Arab country undergoes an endless civil war in which the regional and global powers are intruded to shore up each side.

Each day is more like a low-intensity world war. Apparently at least in Syria governed since December a truce in which deadly arms do not stop spreading. When, on March 15, 2011, in the midst of the Arab Spring, the Sunni social majority challenged the regime of Alawi substrate (variant of the Shi'a branch of Islam) of President Bashar alAssad with mass peaceful demonstrations that overflowed to the ruthless repression that the governmental forces exerted on the protests to which the opposition responded with the armed struggle.

The confrontation ended in a civil confrontation that has ended up attracting Russian and American forces; Shiite militiamen and Turkish troops, local Islamic extremists and international jihad brigadists. An uncertain alliance game in which the maxim does not have to be fulfilled “that the enemies of my enemy are my friends.�

The regime has the interested support of Moscow - which has on the Syrian coast its sole naval base in the Mediterranean, reinforced with an intensive air deployment since September 2015 - and has the confessional and strategic support of Iran, facing Saudi Arabia for regional hegemony, and its satellites in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq (Shiite militias). The nebula of the insurgency - many groups, many of which are just tribal parties in the hands of warlords - receive weapons and funding from the Gulf monarchies or the Ankara Government, depending on the affinity of each guerrilla.

One of the key questions is whether there is an alternative to the 'lesser evil' against the Caliphate and Salafism. The United States has also reasserted insurgent groups in the past , with scant results. Now it counts mainly with the Kurdish militias Units of Protection of the Town (YPG). They are distanced from the rest of the opposition by their supposed understanding with the regime of El Asad.

They have been persecuted since summer of 2016 by Turkey (integrated in NATO), which considers them close to the guerrilla of the Party of the Workers of the Kurdistan (PKK), that fights in Anatolia. But for those responsible for deploying Washington on the ground - a thousand members of the special forces - the YPG, at the head of the Syrian Democratic Forces coalition, are presented as the only credible local partners in the fight against jihadism.

They all claim to fight the Islamic state in Syria, although the intensity and effectiveness of each actor's battle on the war table is very different.

The truce is not bringing peace. ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates are excluded from the cessation of hostilities. But the regime and its Russian allies continue to bomb the province of Idlib under the pretext of attacking the jihadists. After nearly four 13

months of a cease-fire, the resumption of United Nations-sponsored Geneva peace talks has been closed again. The delegation of the Government of Damascus was not prepared to offer concessions after the military victory in Aleppo after a half year of iron siege. Opposition representatives, on the other hand, only agree to participate in transitional negotiations leading to the departure of the Syrian president.

320,000 dead The Syrian war, which began six years ago with protests against the president Bachar el Asad.

Among those killed, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, were 96,000 civilians. At least 652 children were killed last year, up 20 percent from 2015, according to UNICEF. These data only take into account officially identified victims; the actual number may be much higher.

5 million refugees Almost all refugees live in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. In addition, another 6.3 million Syrians are internally displaced. In total, the conflict has forced half of the population (22 million people before the start of the war) to leave their home, according to Reuters data.

In Europe, almost one million Syrians have applied for asylum: two-thirds of the petitions have gone to Germany and Sweden.

Is there an alternative to the lesser evil represented by the Asad in the face of the Caliphate and Salafism? "The moderates have weakened and been defeated in the Middle East except in Tunisia, the exception confirming the rule." Thus describes the failure of democratic and secular options in the Arab spring the American expert Joshua Landis, comment from an interview in a Syrian blog.

Tharir al-Sham, a radical Islamist platform comprising the fighters of the Nusra Front, the former al-Qaeda branch, or the Salafist Axis Ahrar al-Sham are hegemonic - and sometimes antagonistic - forces in Syrian rebel fiefdoms such as Idlib . The Syrian Free Army and other nationalist coalitions have moved into the background against the undisputed combat capability of the fundamentalist militias.

The weight of the insurgents' military branches has also displaced political arms in the High Negotiating Committee, the main opposition structure in Geneva. "Opposing platforms like the Syrian National Congress ... have little credibility in the interior and have remained under Qatari or Saudi tutelage, two forces that do not sympathize precisely with the revolutionary principles that triggered the popular uprising," says the professor Ignacio Ă lvarez-Ossorio in Syria, revolution, sectarianism and jihad (Catarata). Jan Sheijun's chemical attack and the Tomahawk missile bombardment ordered by President Donald Trump appear to have ruined expectations for dialogue.

4.3 billion in humanitarian assistance The UN has just asked for $ 4.3 billion in additional humanitarian assistance to meet the needs of refugees and host communities in several countries in the area. It has also requested 3.2 billion euros for the 13.5 million people in Syria who have little access to health care and food. The situation is even more extreme for the five million Syrians trapped in combat zones.

170 billion To rebuild the country in ten years the Syrians will need 170 billion, according to World Bank estimates. 50% of Syria's infrastructure has been totally destroyed. In addition, oil production has dropped from 385,000 barrels per day in 2010 to 8,000 this year. It will be difficult to raise a scorched economy. The literacy rate drops because 1.75 million children and young people can not go to class.

22,000 foreign fighters About 22,000 foreigners of 100 nationalities have joined the ranks of the Islamic State (ISIS) to fight mainly in Syria, according to a UN report. The most numerous are Saudis and Tunisians. About 4,800, according to Europol, have arrived from Europe. On the other hand, there are between 15,000 and 30,000 militiamen coordinated by Iran fighting alongside the troops of El Asad.

The Asad has demonstrated since 2011 the cruelty it can get to exert on its own people. Thanks to the absolute air superiority of the regime - now reinforced by the Russian aviation - it has been able 14

to bomb at its whim fury insurgents. Residential areas, schools and hospitals have been devastated in Homs or Aleppo. When bombs and missiles are scarce, the regime's army does not hesitate to dump barrels of explosives, fuel and shrapnel from helicopters.

In August 2013, when he was cornered by an opposition offensive in Damascus, he was accused of launching a sarin gas attack that caused at least a thousand deaths in the rebel Guta stronghold. Then he got rid of US military punishment for Moscow's mediation to Washington. In exchange, the international community imposed the delivery of his chemical arsenal to be destroyed.

Everything indicates that the regime has once again been responsible for the bombing with the deadly sarin gas of the 4th day. Some analysts wonder why it made the decision to launch a chemical attack after the strategic victory obtained in Aleppo and in full recoil of the insurgency. Precisely shortly after the new Republican Administration in Washington made public that the exit of the Asad was no longer a priority.

the Damascus air force that was attributed to the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of radars, antiaircraft systems and ancillary facilities, does not hide the fact reflected by the satellite images that the tracks of the base of Sharat were practically intact after the attack of the 4th day.

In view of its history, El Asad is considered by numerous observers capable of having attacked with toxic gas the civilian population in territory of the opposition with the purpose of dissuading by means of the terror to those who declare ready to fight for him in any form. The bombing may have no military sense, but the message received by the opposition's social base was overwhelming.

The Syrian president said days later in an interview with France Presse that the attack had been a montage, as his troops lack chemical weapons. But Israeli military intelligence estimates that the regime has maintained at least 1 percent of the 1,000 tones in which its chemical arsenal was set before its destruction.

After accounting for at least 320,000 deaths in six years of civil confrontation, with half of the 22 million Syrians expelled from their homes - among them five million refugees - in one of the largest civilian exoduses since World War II, The fire of war continues to burn in Syria. The conflict has pushed back the economy of the Arab country for three decades. 83% of the electricity supply network is out of order. Only a fifth of the population lives above the poverty line, according to the United Nations.

He is the owner of Syria thus useful in the west of the country, but the Asad alone dominates ghostly districts in cities and neighborhoods once controlled by the opposition. Eastern Aleppo plays better than any other in the face of the void left by civil confrontation. Almost 80 percent of the city's destruction is concentrated in the eastern neighborhoods, the largest urban stronghold of the

Will the bombardment of US retaliation serve anything? It may limit a new attack with prohibited weapons, but it will hardly change the course of the war. The removal of as much as 20% of 15

insurgents between 2012 and 2016, according to information collected by Syrian expert Aron Lund for IRIN, a publication from the ONU. Three quarters of the population of the eastern part fled to the western governmental zone. The rest were evacuated to insurgent areas. The international commission investigating war crimes in Syria in Geneva is analyzing this case of forced displacement of civilians. Before the war, eastern Aleppo had 1.5 million neighbors. During the second half of 2016 the last 150,000 remained surrounded under a flood of bombs until the fall of the insurgent redoubt in December. The few who have dared to return to their homes have been victims of the abandoned mines or the repression of the victors. www.fundacioncibei.org The views expressed here are the author’s own

.....................

Early on in his presidency, Chávez identified Syria as a key ally – one of the few countries in the Arab world that had consistently taken a firm stand against imperialism and zionism (Chávez, let it be noted, was a staunch supporter of Palestine and opponent of Israel).

Syria, a proud member of John Bolton’s prestigious Beyond the Axis of Evil group, is despised by the west for its leading role in supporting Palestinian resistance over the course of four decades, its alignment with the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah (Syrian support was crucial to Hezbollah’s 2006 defeat of Israel in South Lebanon), and its alliance with Iran.

“Arab civilization and our civilization, the Latin American one, are being summoned in this new century to play the fundamental role of liberating the world, saving the world from the imperialism and capitalist hegemony that threaten the human species. Syria and Venezuela are at the vanguard of this struggle.” (Hugo Chávez, 2010, during Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Caracas)

16

Trump to reverse Obama openings to Cuba under the false flag of Human Rights

President Donald Trump gets off Marine One before boarding Air Force One for a speech in Miami on Cuba policy, June 16, 2017

In the days following the death of Fidel Castro, then-President-elect Donald Trump did exactly what one might expect: He took to Twitter.

Trump condemned the “deal” the Obama administration put in place over the course of its normalization process with Cuba. “If Cuba is unwilling to make a better deal for the Cuban people, the Cuban/American people and the U.S. as a whole, I will terminate deal,” Trump tweeted.

back toward Cold War-era policies designed as part of a catastrophically failed half-century attempt to foster regime change. “This is a reversion to a policy that never worked,” said Marguerite Jiménez, who oversaw commercial relations between the U.S. and Cuba during her tenure as senior policy advisor to Obama’s Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker.

“This isn’t a new deal,” Jiménez said. “This is an old deal. And it’s and old bad deal.”

Today at the Manuel Artime Theater in Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood, Trump unveiled his administration’s Cuba policy — though not necessarily to the benefit of the Cuban or American people, as his tweet pledged.

Carried out under the unlikely banner, for Trump, of human rights and democracy, the shift is instead more likely to re-impose hardships on ordinary Cubans — the very same people Trump, Rubio, and Diaz-Balart claim to champion.

Following statements by his CubanAmerican congressional allies Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., as well as Florida Governor Rick Scott and Vice President Mike Pence, Trump promised to roll back recent openings with Cuba. “We will enforce the ban on tourism,” he proclaimed. “We will enforce the embargo. We will take concrete steps to ensure that investments flow directly to the people so they can open private businesses and begin to build their country’s great, great future, a country of great potential.”

In December 2014, Obama took a new approach to engagement with Cuba, which successive American governments had been working to isolate since after the island nation’s communist revolution in 1958. The Obama policy shift culminated in 23 bilateral agreements between the historic foes, leading to increased financial investments and travel to the island and, therefore, bolstering its nascent private sector.

Trump is on the cusp of reversing President Barack Obama’s limited opening to Cuba, moving

Diplomatic ties and bilateral agreements will likely remain intact, according to Emily Mendrala, who served in Obama’s National Security Council as a Director for Legislative Affairs, where she coordinated congressional policy discussions on Cuba.

17

“The bilateral agreements represent countless hours of careful discussion between our two governments, and have resulted in concrete cooperation on issues ranging from real-time law enforcement information sharing to the resumption of direct mail between our two countries,” Mendrala said. “It would be extremely counterproductive to revert back to the previous time-consuming policy of exchanging formal diplomatic notes each time our two countries needed to communicate.”

take private taxis, and they pay private tour guides that guide them around the city,” LeoGrande said.

“That’s money directly into the hands of ordinary Cubans.”

Central to Trump’s plan is a ban on financial transactions with any enterprises owned or run by the business division of the Cuban military. The military’s Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A., or GAESA, is estimated to oversee 50 to 60 percent of the entire Cuban economy. But GAESA, an entity integral to Cuba’s estimated $3 billion to $4 billion tourist industry, is by no means the only actor

Many of these Cubans themselves agree.

“It’s a fundamentally negative thing,” said Paver Core Broche, who owns and runs a café in Havana’s Vedado neighborhood, of Trump’s policy shifts, speculating that they would “block our financial development, increased employment, and economic possibilities.”

Cubans like Core Broche are justifiably wary of Trump’s alliance with the influential Cuban Lobby, a wealthy and politically active cohort of right-wing exiles in Miami, in the key electoral swing state of Florida. Republican Cuban-Americans like Rubio have long pushed for a hardline against Cuba. In this sense, Cuba has transformed from an enduring diplomatic anomaly and geopolitical issue into a matter of domestic policy and electoral kowtowing.

A pedicab displaying a U.S. flag travels on a street in Havana on June 15, 2017.

taking a hit. Trump’s policy will also impose harsh restrictions on travel to the country, effectively squelching a wave of American tourism. Though still technically illegal under Obama’s new policies, tourism had nevertheless burgeoned under the 12 approved categories for legitimate travel laid out by the U.S. during the normalization process.

And yet hindering the financial wellbeing of Cubans has long proved an ideologically tenuous product of the 56-year-old embargo against the country. At its inception, the embargo articulated a desire for regime change; now, the Trump administration is passing off the embargo that impoverished Cubans as pressure on the Castro government for reforms on human rights issues and to encourage “democratic values.”

While Trump’s new restrictions are intended to impede economic or financial advantages for the Cuban government, which has been led by Fidel’s brother Raúl since 2008, any policy that limits travel will inevitably hurt Cubans, said William LeoGrande, who teaches government at American University and co-authored the book “Back Channel to Cuba: The Hidden History of Negotiations between Washington and Havana.” “When Americans go down there, a lot of them stay in private homes, they eat in private restaurants, they

“It’s hard to believe that human rights are really anything more than just an excuse,” said LeoGrande, the American University professor.

“This is really more a matter of political horse trading than it is a matter of foreign policy.”

Opinion by: Miriam Pensack June 16 2017 The views expressed here are the author’s own

18

Chåvez came under a great deal of criticism from the US for his relationship with Cuba. Needless to say, this didn’t affect him.

In 2011, Chavez condemned the United States' decision of maintaining the economic embargo against Cuba, even though 186 countries requested the opposite, out of 196 member states of the United Nations Organization (UN): "Once again, the United Nations voted down the blockade against Cuba. The single two countries which voted in favor of it were the United States and Israel. 186 countries of the world voted to order the US to end the blockade, but as they are the empire, they do not care of UN resolutions. What a cynicism that Government has. They think they own the world," said Chavez during an event at Venezuela's Military Academy.

19

Paying the price of fighting for a different world Members of European Parliament demand the National Assembly to return to the table of dialogue with the Venezuelan Government

The spokeswoman for the United Left in the European Parliament, Marina Albiol, and Javier Couso have called on Venezuelan National Assembly President Julio Borges to return to the dialogue table with the government of President Nicolás Maduro, UNASUR,the exponents José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Lionel Fernández and Martín Torrijos and also by the Vatican. In the opinion of both, this will lead to a peaceful electoral process and it is the "only democratic exit" possible to tackle the situation that the Latin American country is currently facing.

Borges attended a special session of the Foreign Affairs Committees (AFET) and European and Latin American Relations (Eurolat), upon the invitation of the European People's Party. In a very tough speech and without citing any source to support the data he was giving, the President of the Assembly asked the EU to help the opposition to end the Government of Maduro, which has been accused of leading "the worst Dictatorship of the world ". In the company of the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, asked the community institutions to impose sanctions on some members of the Government.

20

Faced with Borges's insistence that Venezuela is a dictatorship, he has ironically asked if he meant "the dictatorship in which there have been 20 elections in the last 18 years; to the dictatorship of a country where there are more than 100 legal parties; Where media outlets criticize the government; or where the opposition celebrates its primaries in one of the powers as the National Electoral Council.”

On the contrary, the MEP, who is vice-president of AFET, believes that "what has happened in Venezuela since 2002 is a very serious attempt to change the government by force" and that it includes "calls not to recognize the president and to overthrow him." Something that in practice "translates into acts of violence" by some supporters of the opposition. In fact, Couso has provided some data on the deaths of the past weeks in the protests in Venezuela to dismantle the theses of Borges and González that the Government is responsible: "The figures are curious according to anyone who counts. There have been 62 people killed in recent weeks in Venezuela, six of those deaths have been allegedly caused by security agents who are in the process of being tried. In addition, there are 23 other officials detained or wanted by the Justice department. "

But in addition to these, "14 people have died in the looting that has been influnced by the opposition; eight who were trying to pass the barricades; three, by shooting criminal gangs; and 15 because they were passing near on going protests but did not participate. At least 27 people were Chavez supporters." Couso worried about the "denial of the opponent" exercise that is part of the opposition to Maduro, "because according to the last real photo - that of the last elections - the first party in votes is the Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela with 5.6 Millions and it is also the first party of the opposition. " "Are we going to deny them too?" He asked.

One Parliament, "also worried about Venezuela's economic crisis, of course. But they do not seem so worried about a crisis that causes the Spanish state to have 30% of child poverty. " In this House, Albiol has said, "the deputies of the Spanish Popular Party speak more of Venezuela than of Spain," which "is not without curiosity."

The UI spokeswoman has been direct with Borges, calling into question "can talk about democracy and freedom" when "you call for the armed forces to break their silence," instead of participating "in open dialogue" and accept the process constituent. "He speaks of a coup d'état, but Mr Maduro was elected in an election in 2013" and his term expires in 2018. "You yourself are the result of legislative elections: Can you tell me if the ones you won have been the only ones Democratic elections in Venezuela? ", He asked Finally, Albiol has also referred to the label of "political prisoners" used by both the Venezuelan opposition, conservatives, Social Democrats and liberals in Europe. "When they talk about political prisoners, who are they referring to? Those who are detained for calling the coup d'etat and inciting violence in their country?"

Said IU MEP in reference to Leopoldo López .

"They came asking for elections and there is already an electoral route. a Constituent also.

They have the regional ones in December and the presidential ones in 2018. Fight for those elections and sit down to dialogue and resolve peacefully. Or what are they looking for, a civil war or an intervention?" He said.

Albiol, who is the coordinator of the Group of the European United Left / Nordic Green Left Group for Eurolat, began by criticizing that the European Parliament seems more concerned about democracy, economic crisis and human rights in Venezuela than in other Latin American countries or in The Spanish State.

www.iueuropa.org

The views expressed here are the author’s own

"As you see," he told Borges, "this is a Parliament that is very concerned about democracy, but about Venezuela." The question would be, why "my colleagues are not so concerned about democracy in Honduras, where the coup d'etat was not condemned" against Manuel Zelaya, "or for democracy in Brazil, where there was not even a debate after The coup d'état" to Dilma Roussef.

"It is a Parliament very concerned for human rights, but for those of Venezuela. They are not so concerned about the human rights of migrants and refugees who die in the Mediterranean trying to reach Europe, " he continued.

21

PUBLIC LECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LAIKIPIA:

"CHÁVEZ: BUILDER OF A MULTIPOLAR WORLD ".

With the intention of publicizing the legacy of Commander Hugo Chavez in the construction of a new political order in the country and in the promotion of a multipolar world, the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the Republic of Kenya, on the 26th of May 2017, attended an event following an invitation from the University of Laikipia to give a lecture on "Chavez: Builder of a Multipolar World."

During this day, the Chargé d'Affaires, Mr. Jose Avila, referred to it as “Commander Chávezexpanding Venezuela's global horizon” and worked hard to build new alliances and strategic relationships with leading powers such as Russia, China, and Iran, the African Continent and the countries of the South.

The occasion was conducive for political actors, social activists and the general public to express their views on the work of Commander Chávez and to show solidarity with the Bolivarian Government and its people in the face of the multidimensional aggression perpetrated today by the national and international Right "against the Homeland of Bolivar and Chavez. " The conference, held at the Mandela Hall Auditorium of Laikipia University campus, Laikipia County, was attended by representatives of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to Kenya, officials of the University , teachers, Students and the general public.

Embassy of Venezuela in Kenya The views expressed here are the author’s own

The diplomatic representative emphasized that in all these relations the same terms and ideas always prevailed: anti-imperialist struggle, unity, search for peace, preservation of the planet, mutual respect, self-determination and independence of people, exchange and Fair trade and of equals. He also emphasized the extraordinary love of Chavez and his commitment to the cause of the freedom of the Palestinian people.

22

SOLIDARITY ACT FROM THE YOUTHFUL FRIENDS OF VENEZUELA IN KENYA On the 25th of May 2017, a group of 30 young students from the Technical University of Kenya (TUK) made their way to the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Kenya to express their unrestricted support for the Bolivarian Government and People of Venezuela before the multinational aggression that fuel fascist factors of the International and National Right.

This day, which coincided with the celebration of the Day of Africa, the Chargé d'Affaires José Avila, denounced the elements of violent sectors that are supported from abroad that intend to use the right to protest, guaranteed by the Bolivarian Government, to commit crime, generate chaos and distress among the population and destabilize democratic institutions. These elements have gone so far as to burn humans alive, horrendous acts that have never been witnessed in the history of Venezuela; left many civilians dead; destroyed and looted public and private property, including health, education, infrastructure, maternal and child health centers.

The students and leaders of the Technical University of Kenya (TUK) emphasized that "the Empire and its oligarchy puppets had no right to attack the Homeland of Bolivar and Chavez", for which they committed strongly to denounce through social media the international campaign against Venezuela and the terrorist actions of the factors of the national ultra right against the Venezuelan people and its legitimately elected Government.

Source:Embassy of Venezuela in Kenya The views expressed here are the author’s own

23

Non Aligned Movement and the Bandung Principles as Relevant Today as Ever: 62nd anniversary of the Principles of Bandung.

Today’s celebration of the 62nd anniversary of the Principles of Bandung is highly appropriate because of the deeply uncertain times that we are in, and the challenges and opportunities that developing countries face.

In a world of so many crises affecting the developing countries, the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Bandung Principles that led to the NAM’s formation are as relevant as ever.

This was stated by the South Centre at a forum held by the NAM to commemorate the adoption of the Bandung Principles in Bandung by leaders of the newly independent countries 62 years ago.

The strong solidarity which has guided this Movement in the past decades and its founding principles that underlie such solidary continue to be important and are even more relevant today as it was in 1961 at the founding of the NAM in Belgrade and in 1955 at the Bandung African-Asian Conference.

Below is the statement presented by Vicente Paolo Yu, Deputy Executive Director of the South Centre, at the NAM Forum held at the Palais des Nations (Geneva) on 20 April 2017.

The South Centre, as the intergovernmental policy research and analysis think tank of developing countries, like the NAM itself, traces its roots of fostering South-South cooperation and solidarity to the Spirit of Bandung. We stand ready to continue working together with the NAM in its endeavours.

The result of the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, known as the Ten Principles of Bandung, was a political statement containing the basic principles that would guide the efforts of developing countries to promote peace and cooperation in the world. These principles are worth recalling now:

Statement in the NAM Forum on the 62nd Anniversary of the Principles of Bandung Geneva 20 April 2017 Thank you very much, Ambassador Valero, Chair of the NAM in Geneva, for your kind invitation to the South Centre to make a statement at this important forum of the NAM on the relevance of the NAM in today’s times on the occasion of the 24

1.) Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

2.) Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.

3.) Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and small.

4.) Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country.

5.) Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself singly or collectively, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

6.) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defense to serve the particular interests of any of the big powers, abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries.

7.) Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country.

8.) Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties' own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

9.) Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation.

10.) Respect for justice and international obligation.

As we look at our world today, these principles are deeply threatened, and yet, by the same token, their observance is even more needed.

Born out of the struggle against colonialism, and with a common aspiration to develop economically and provide better lives for their peoples, the Non-Aligned Movement remains relevant as one of the most important platforms to promote unity among the countries of the developing world which is so necessary to face their

longstanding, emerging and growing challenges.

This is particularly true inside the United Nations, where most of the NAM’s daily business takes place, as its member states debate, agree on and advance common positions quite successfully on many issues in the multilateral arena, including on political and security issues, health, the right to development, human rights, among others.

The NAM continues to be relevant in providing support to specific member states such as Palestine which continues to face occupation and Cuba which has long been suffering from an embargo by the United States for decades. It remains a strong pillar of support for developing countries fighting against racism, occupation and neo-colonialism. NAM also takes up social and economic issues, so its coordination on these issues with the G77 and China continues to be very important.

The South Centre most recently was at the 60th anniversary of Bandung in 2015 and at the 17th NAM Summit in Isla Margarita in Venezuela in 2016. Both of these important events highlighted for us the importance of South-South cooperation, unity, and progress as exemplified by the NAM. The 17th NAM Summit Isla Margarita Declaration, with its 21 goals, and its Final Document of more than 200 pages, both provide the framework for the continued relevance and unity of the NAM in promoting development, maintaining peace, and preventing war.

Development and poverty eradication continue to be the main challenges that face the South. While the past decades have seen great strides in the development of the South, that progress has not been widespread nor equitable. It is also increasingly becoming more difficult to do so because of the many crises that developing countries are now facing such as climate change and other 25

environmental crises; wars that impact on the peace and stability of developing countries; continuing adverse global economic conditions arising from the responses of developed countries to the global financial crisis; continuing structural economic deficiencies in international trade, investment, intellectual property, health and other policy regimes that make it difficult for developing countries to maintain their policy space for development; the rising threat of global pandemics; and the impact and challenges of the North-South technological divide and the advent of new technology-based automated modes of production on the development prospects of developing countries.

In the face of these myriad of development challenges to the South, the NAM together with other developing groupings such as the G77 and China and the many regional organizations that have emerged as an expression of South solidarity in the past decades inspired by the Bandung and NAM spirit, are more important than ever in fostering real development-oriented South-South cooperation, unity, and progress.

To conclude, from the lessons that we have learned in working with developing countries and their organizations in various multilateral arena, including with the NAM, it is important for the NAM to continue and enhance those actions that enable it to maintain and advance its positions consistently and coherently. This is much needed especially in a world that has become much more unstable, politically and economically; where South-South solidarity and cooperation are very much in need; and where some developing countries are emerging in some areas which could provide both new opportunities and new challenges for the rebalancing of global power relationships. It is up to the NAM to grasp these opportunities and to effectively address these challenges through its greater unity and solidarity.

In this context, the South Centre looks forward to working closely with the NAM and its Member States.

Thank you.

Source; South Centre Bulletin

The views expressed here are the author’s own

26

World leaders condemn Trump's decision to quit Paris climate deal

By Laura Smith-Spark, June 3, 2017

President Donald Trump faced a chorus of global disapproval in the wake of his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, with allies and rivals uniting to accuse him of failing future generations.

Some of the fiercest criticism came from Europe, where many leaders had made personal appeals to Trump to stick with an accord backed by 195 nations.

Following Trump's carefully stage-managed announcement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni put out a joint statement in which they pledged to implement the Paris climate agreement notwithstanding the withdrawal of the US. They also asserted that the US could not unilaterally renegotiate the 2015 agreement -contrary to a suggestion made by Trump during his Thursday announcement. The UN body that facilitated the deal said it "cannot be renegotiated based on the request of a single party."

Macron decried Trump's move in a live televised address, saying that "on the climate there is no plan B because there is no planet B" and that "we will not renegotiate a less ambitious deal."

Switching to English, Macron threw one of Trump's campaign slogans back at him, saying: "We all share the same responsibility to make our planet great again."

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the decision was "a major fault against humanity and against our planet" and accused Trump of being "very arrogant because he says well, I don't agree, so therefore everybody has to negotiate again."

Speaking Friday in Berlin, Merkel called Trump's decision "very regrettable."

"The Paris agreement is one of the fundamental columns of the working together of world communities," she said. "To everyone for whom the future of our planet is important, I say let's continue going down this path so we're successful for our Mother Earth."

The US President also faced difficult phone calls with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and UK Prime Minister Theresa May following the announcement.

According to the White House, Trump "personally explained the decision" and "reassured the leaders that America remains committed to the Transatlantic alliance and to robust efforts to protect the environment."

The readout added: "He noted America's strong record in reducing emissions and leading the development of clean energy technology, and he 27

reiterated that the United States under the Trump Administration, will be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth."

Trudeau made his feelings clear on Twitter. "We are deeply disappointed that the United States federal government has decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement," he said. "Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth."

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Thursday that Trump's decision was "disappointing but not at all surprising," since it was "entirely as expected and as predicted and as promised by him."Australia remains committed to the Paris Agreement and its own promises to cut emissions, he said.

"Maybe he didn't have to exit the Paris agreement, because it was only a framework. Maybe he could have simply changed the responsibilities of the United States within this framework. But what was said cannot be taken back," he said.

"If the US will not work on this issue there will be no agreement. We have to take the situation at hand to work constructively on this issue."

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, also speaking in St Petersburg, said India would be a responsible nation with regards to climate change.

Asked about Trump's decision, he declined to take "sides" but said, "we must not steal something that rightfully belongs to the next generation. We have to make sure that we must leave behind a beautiful, bountiful nature for our future generations so that they can live peacefully, they can breathe fresh air and live a good life."

China: 'Global challenge' China, the world's largest carbon emitter, said it would stick by its commitments to the Paris agreement despite the US decision.

"Climate change is a global challenge and no country can stay away from it," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying. "The Paris Agreement is a hard-won outcome condensing the broadest consensus of the international A picture taken Thursday shows the City Hall of Paris illuminated in green following Trump's decision. community and setting up the direction and goals for global cooperative efforts to cope with www.edition.cnn.com The views expressed here are the author’s own climate change."

China will continue to implement its vision for sustainable development and take steps to tackle climate change "no matter what position other countries shall take," she said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum that he would not "judge" Trump for pulling out of the Paris accord but that he hoped the US would cooperate on climate change.

28

Hugo Chávez – Revolutionary Internationalist “Let’s save the human race – let’s finish off the empire” In the course of his 14 years as President of Venezuela, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías became a much-admired figure among the international left.

Although any actual-existing revolutionary leadership will always attract the suspicion of western coffee-shop socialists (and Chávez certainly had his fair share of detractors), this larger-than-life figure won hearts with his immense love for the Venezuelan people and his willingness to loudly stand up for socialist ideals in a post-Soviet end-of-history world where few had the courage to set forth such views.

Nobody could deny Chávez’s role in leading the Latin American backlash against neoliberal dogma; nor could they deny the progressive, pro-poor nature of Venezuela’s social programmes.

Under Chávez’s leadership, Venezuela’s oil wealth (supplemented by Chinese soft loans) has been put to excellent use. With the help of Cuban expertise, illiteracy has become a thing of the past in Venezuela. Access to education has been vastly increased at all levels, and this is considered as a fundamental component of building democracy.

Chávez famously said that “the only way of ending poverty is giving power to the poor. Knowledge and consciousness are the main power!”

Again with Cuba’s help, the Barrio Adentro programme has brought high quality healthcare to Venezuela’s poorest communities, most of which previously had zero access to professional healthcare of any kind. Much to the dismay of the western multinationals, a large array of businesses have been nationalised, and there have been numerous experiments with worker management and

collective ownership. Grassroots communal councils have been set up across the country with a view to engaging the masses and building a more meaningful democracy. The political process set in motion by Chávez is a socialist-oriented programme that prioritises the needs of the millions of ordinary people: the slum-dwellers, the workers, the peasants, the unemployed, the indigenous, the African, the disenfranchised. Meanwhile, Chávez’s government held elections like they were going out of fashion.

This profound process in Venezuela is so exciting that it has even been able to win support from sections of the western liberal-left, usually so reliable in its outright rejection of anti-imperialist and socialist-oriented states, from A(rgentina) to Z(imbabwe).

However, one aspect of Hugo Chávez’s legacy that makes much of the western left rather uncomfortable (and makes the western ruling classes furious) is Chávez’s uncompromising antiimperialism – his absolute insistence on at-all-costs global unity against the main enemy. Everybody likes a nice literacy programme, but why oh why did Chávez have to go and align himself with brutal dictatorships in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Libya, Belarus, Vietnam and North Korea? Why did he have to be so friendly with serialhuman-rights-abusing Russia and China? Such a sentiment could be found in more than a few Chávez obituaries emanating from the western left.

29

For example, the irrepressible International ‘Socialist’ Organisation complained that “the international legacy of the Venezuelan president … has been tarnished by his appalling support of Gaddafi, Assad, Ahmadinejad and the Chinese state.” Owen Jones, 2013 winner of Britain’s Got Liberal-Left Talent, was troubled by “Chavez’s unpleasant foreign associations. Although his closest allies were his fellow democratically elected left-of-centre governments in Latin America, he also supported brutal dictators in Iran, Libya and Syria.

It has certainly sullied his reputation”. (I should point out in passing that Chavez’s closest ally was Cuba, which Jones presumably does not consider to be “democratically elected” and which is rather a long way “left-of-centre”!)

This pattern – celebrating Venezuela’s domestic policy whilst denouncing its international stance – is a useful reminder as to the limits of western social democracy and indeed the whole concept of ‘freedom of speech’ in capitalist societies. An ‘alternative’ viewpoint is basically accepted – and can even be given a voice in the liberal media – to the extent that it keeps within reasonably well-defined limits. The British state is willing to tolerate a minority viewpoint that promotes a slightly less deranged version of capitalism, especially if it’s in a country that doesn’t have much connection with British economic interests.

What the western ruling classes will never tolerate – and therefore what the social-democratic left will never promote – is global anti-imperialist unity; is the unambiguous and consistent support for all states and movements fighting imperialism. Such unity is precisely what presents an existential threat to imperialism; it is precisely what the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) seeks to destroy; it is precisely what the endless divide-and-rule strategies seek to subvert; it is, in short, the only hope of putting a stop to imperialist domination and creating a world where peoples can develop in peace and security. As Chávez himself put it: “Let’s save the human race – let’s finish off the empire”.

Chávez gave his whole-hearted support to the global movement towards multipolarity; to the increasing coordination between the progressive family of nations. He supported deep economic,

political, cultural and military ties among those states that challenge western hegemony. This aspect of Chávez is absolutely central to his political legacy, and is what the western ruling classes hated him for most (in their eyes he had “inherited Fidel Castro’s mantle as Washington’s main irritant in Latin America”). What I attempt to show with this article is that, rather than sweeping Chavez’s revolutionary internationalism under the carpet, or seeing it as a blot on his progressive copybook, this anti-imperialist legacy needs to be explored, understood, defended and built upon.

“There are no boundaries in this struggle to the death. We cannot be indifferent to what happens anywhere in the world, for a victory by any country over imperialism is our victory; just as any country’s defeat is a defeat for all of us.”

(Ernesto Che Guevara)

Building the global anti-imperialist front The modern world can be a very unforgiving environment, particularly for countries with eccentric ideas about taking control of their own natural resources, redistributing wealth, redistributing land, having an independent foreign policy, that sort of thing. Those countries of 20th century Latin America that attempted to exercise independence and sovereignty were punished for their sins with brutal coups and merciless dictatorships (Argentina, Brazil, Chile). Tiny Cuba has been treated to a half-century of ruthless economic blockade, political destabilisation, diplomatic isolation and a few hundred assassination attempts. When Zimbabwe transferred land from wealthy white colonisers to impoverished black indigenous workers, the ruling classes of Britain and the US made clear their dissatisfaction by orchestrating a vicious slander campaign against Zanu-PF and Robert Mugabe, imposing sanctions, and channelling large sums of cash to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. When Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych rejected the EU’s many-rather-unpleasant-strings-attached loan package, opting instead for Russian economic assistance, he was promptly swept out of office by a western-backed ‘revolution’.. The attempts of 30

Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Grenada, Nicaragua, Libya and other countries to forge an independent path have been answered with all-out imperialist war.

To survive in such a hostile world, there are only two real choices: capitulate, or unite and fight.

Hugo Chávez had a very clear and farsighted worldview, informed by his rich knowledge of world history, his identification of US-led imperialism as the major obstacle to peace and development, and his own experiences of trying to exercise sovereignty and build Venezuelan socialism in the face of destabilisation and CIA-backed coup attempts. He saw Venezuela as part of a global movement challenging half a millennium of colonialism, imperialism and racism; a global movement that included China, Brazil, Russia, Zimbabwe, Libya, Syria, South Africa, Cuba, Belarus, Vietnam, Iran, Ecuador, Bolivia, DPRK, Nicaragua, Argentina and more. He recognised that the enemy used every trick in the book to undermine those countries that refused to go along with the Washington Consensus, and he understood the urgent need for a very wide-ranging unity in order to resist this onslaught. This understanding led Chávez to be totally consistent in his anti-imperialism. If unity is strength, then one can’t just stand by and watch the empire pick off our allies one by one. As he put it during a visit to South Africa in 2008: “A day can’t be lost and a second can’t be lost in the work of uniting us, the countries of the Third World… Only united will we be free and only free will we be able to develop ourselves fully.”

Therefore the strong relationships that Chávez and his team built with all socialist and anti-imperialist states are no anomaly, no unfortunate accident, no error of judgement, but represent an ideological and strategic position with is central to Chavismo.

SYRIA “Arab civilization and our civilization, the Latin American one, are being summoned in this new century to play the fundamental role of liberating the world, saving the world from the imperialism and capitalist hegemony that threaten the human species. Syria and Venezuela are at the vanguard of this struggle.” (Hugo Chávez, 2010, during Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Caracas)

Early on in his presidency, Chávez identified Syria as a key ally – one of the few countries in the Arab world that had consistently taken a firm stand against imperialism and zionism (Chávez, let it be noted, was a staunch supporter of Palestine and opponent of Israel).

Syria, a proud member of John Bolton’s prestigious Beyond the Axis of Evil group, is despised by the west for its leading role in supporting Palestinian resistance over the course of four decades, its alignment with the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah (Syrian support was crucial to Hezbollah’s 2006 defeat of Israel in South Lebanon), and its alliance with Iran.

Visiting Damascus in August 2006, Chávez stated, after a long meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: “We have decided to be free. We want to cooperate to build a new world where states’ and people’s self-determination are respected… We have the same political vision and we will resist American imperialist aggression together.” Visiting Syria again in 2009 to put together a plan of economic cooperation, Chávez described the Syrian people as “architects of resistance” to imperialism, and called on the peoples of the Global South to unite, proclaiming: “We should fight to create consciousness that is free from imperialist 31

doctrine… fight to defeat backwardness, poverty, misery… to convert our countries into true powers through the consciousness of the people.”

When Syria came under threat of regime change in 2011, Chávez and his government were quick to state their loyalty to the Syrian government.

“This is a crisis that has been planned and provoked… Syria is a sovereign nation. This crisis has a single cause: the world has entered into a new era of imperialism. It’s madness.” Having made its political line very clear, Venezuela followed up by putting words into action, shipping free diesel fuel to Syria on multiple occasions to help it overcome shortages created by sanctions.

Needless to say, Venezuela’s unambiguously anti-imperialist position wasn’t appreciated by many on the western left. Counterfire, among others, chastised Chávez in no uncertain terms for his vocal support for the Syrian government: “The statement of support of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to ‘the socialist leader and Brother Bashar al Assad’, claiming he is the target of an imperialist operation to overthrow his regime and blaming the US for unrest in the country, is an insult to the Syrian protesters and the martyrs who lost their lives in the uprising against the Syrian authoritarian regime.”

According to Al-Jazeera (mouthpiece of the Qatari monarchy – a major supplier of arms and money to rebel groups in Syria), “Chavez and others discredited themselves and probably discouraged any lasting alliance between Arab revolutionaries and sympathetic forces in South America”.

– tearing the country apart. (My article ‘Decriminalising Bashar’ deals with this issue in detail). That the west’s plan is to remove Syria from the resistance axis is now clear for all to see, but that wasn’t always the case. Analysing the situation from a standpoint of militant anti-imperialism, Chávez was able to understand the big picture from the start when so many others fell for the campaign of lies and demonisation.

LIBYA Chávez recognised Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi as an important ally in the global struggle against imperialism: someone who had successfully led their country away from colonial dependency, developed an advanced social welfare system (with the highest human development index, highest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality and highest literacy rate in Africa), and tangibly supported socialist and anti-imperialist movements around the world from Ireland to South Africa, Nicaragua to Palestine, Dominica to Namibia. Indeed, Chávez visited Libya five times during his presidency. In Tripoli for the 40th anniversary of the Libyan revolution (2009), he declared that Venezuela and Libya “have the same fate, the same battle against a common enemy and we will win.” He went on to make an impassioned call for African unity: “Africa should never again allow countries to come from across the seas to impose certain political, economic, and social systems. Africa should be of the Africans, and only by way of unity will Africa be free and great.”

Chávez was not swayed by such judgements; when it was deeply unfashionable to do so, he defended Syria from the regime change campaign it was (and still is) struggling against.

“How can I not support Assad? He’s the legitimate leader.”

In the course of over three years, the true nature of the Syria crisis has become increasingly transparent, as the myth of the democraticsocialist-feminist-peaceful-secular opposition has faded away and been replaced by the rather less rosy reality of murderous sectarian fundamentalists – armed to the teeth by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, with the open approval of Britain and the US 32

Just a few weeks later, Gaddafi arrived in Venezuela for his first ever trip to South America. At the Africa-South America Summit held on Margarita Island, Chávez presented Gaddafi with a replica of a sword used by Venezuelan independence hero Simón Bolívar, stating: “Gaddafi is for Libya what Bolívar is for us.” It was Chávez’ and Gaddafi’s shared goal to usher in a new era of wide-ranging, meaningful cooperation between Africa and Latin America.

As with Syria, Chávez understood from the beginning what the ‘uprising’ in Libya was all about.

While luminaries of the British left such as Gilbert Achcar were loudly calling for a no-fly zone to help get rid of Gaddafi, Chávez spoke out in defence of his friend and comrade: “A campaign of lies is being spun together regarding Libya. I’m not going to condemn Gaddafi. I’d be a coward to condemn someone who has been my friend.”

Venezuela led the calls for a peaceful resolution to the crisis, offering its services several times to help mediate between the Libyan government and rebels. “Let’s try to help, to intercede between the parties. A cease-fire, sitting down at a table. That’s the path when facing conflicts of this sort.” Sadly, the rebels and their NATO backers were not in the slightest bit interested in negotiations.

Together with regional allies including Cuba, Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador, Venezuela unamiguously denounced the barbaric NATO bombing. “Libya is under imperial fire.

Nothing justifies this,” said Chávez. “Indiscriminate bombing. Who gave those countries the right?

Neither the United States, nor France, nor England, nor any country has the right to be dropping bombs… I hope a revolution blows up on them in the United States. Let’s see what they do.” Summing up NATO’s post-Washington Consensus strategy in a very clear and simple way, he stated: “The empire is going crazy and it’s a real threat to world peace as imperialism has entered its phase of extreme craziness.” And in August 2011, when Tripoli was bombed into submission, Chávez predicted with remarkable prescience that “the drama of Libya isn’t ending with the fall of Gaddafi’s government. The tragedy in Libya is just beginning.”

Libya was another issue on which Chávez’s solid anti-imperialism was totally at odds with the first-world liberalism of the western left. Whereas Alex Callinicos, leading theoretician of the embarrassingly misnamed Socialist Workers Party (UK), called on his followers to “join the Libyan people’s celebrations of the tyrant’s demise”, Chávez was shaken by the news of Gaddafi’s NATO-orchestrated murder. “Regrettably, Gaddafi’s death has been confirmed. He was murdered… I will remember him all of my life as a great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr.”

Yes, there is a pattern here. Whereas the western left has almost invariably fallen for the demonisation campaigns orchestrated against socialist and anti-imperialist states by the right-wing press, Chávez unfailingly saw through the propaganda and stayed true to his dream of global unity against the empire. In a world of cowardice and fickleness, he stood up and said: “I am not a coward, I am not fickle.”

Chávez started from a position of instinctive distrust for the propaganda that comes out of the west. Never did he fall for simplistic ‘evil dictator’ Blofeld-style cat-stroking-supervillain narratives.

His whole life and political experience had taught him that the mainstream media is not to be trusted; that the imperialists spin every news item to suit their own interests. The Venezuelan media is still mainly run by the elite, who hate Chávez, who have always subjected Chávez to racism and classism, who have always spread lies and slander about him.

It was easy enough for him to derive from that experience that what they said about the other countries in the ‘extended Axis of Evil’ was also probably nonsense. Meanwhile, which were the countries helping Venezuela out, supporting its policies, supporting regional integration of Latin America? Which were the countries supporting liberation movements around the world? Which were the countries supporting the liberation of Palestine – for example supplying the weaponry for the defence of Gaza? Which were the countries standing up to the US, to Britain, to France, to Israel?

33

IRAN Iran is another country that is routinely subjected to slander and demonisation in the west, and is another state with which Hugo Chávez built a lasting friendship, much to the dismay of western imperialism. In a fascinatingly silly article published in March 2007, senior US Republican Bailey Hutchison ranted: “In his struggle against US ‘imperialism,’ Mr. Chavez has found a useful ally in the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism — the government of Iran. He is one of the few leaders to publicly support Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, and the Iranian mullahs have rewarded Mr. Chavez’s friendship with lucrative contracts, including the transfer of Iranian professionals and technologies to Venezuela. Mr. Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed plans for a $2 billion joint fund, part of which will be used as a ‘mechanism for liberation’ against American allies… Left unchecked, Messrs. Ahmadinejad and Chavez could be the Khrushchev-Castro tandem of the early 21st century, funneling arms, money and propaganda to Latin America, and endangering that region’s fragile democracies and volatile economies.”

Iran's President Ahmadinejad is welcomed

by Venezuela's President Chavez in CaracasChávez visited Iran several times, and hosted his Iranian counterpart – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – in Venezuela on several occasions. Despite their differing ideologies and philosophies, the two leaders created a solid alliance based on antiimperialist unity. “One of the targets that Yankee imperialism has in its sights is Iran, which is why we are showing our solidarity,” Chavez said. “When we meet, the devils go crazy.” Ahmadinejad talked of Chávez as “a brother and trench mate” and described Iran and Venezuela as being key parts of a revolutionary front “stretching all the way to East Asia” from Latin America. “If one day, my brother Mr. Chávez and I and a few other people were once alone in the world, today we have a long line of revolutionary officials and people standing alongside each other.”

As a result of the friendly relations established between the two countries, practical cooperation has blossomed – trade has increased more than a hundred-fold since 2001 (bilateral trade reputedly exceeds $40 billion), and the two countries have joint ventures in several areas including energy, agriculture, housing, and infrastructure. Iran’s construction expertise has been used to build thousands of homes for Venezuela’s poor.

Chávez stood up for Iran’s right to develop nuclear power, and correctly noted that the nuclear issue was being used by the west to mobilise popular opinion for war, “like they used the excuse of weapons of mass destruction to do what they did in Iraq.” He declared Venezuela’s firm support for Iran with respect to the threat of war against it: “I should use the opportunity to condemn those military threats that are being made against Iran. We know that they will never be able to restrict the Islamic revolution in whatever way… We will always stand together, we will not only resist, we will also stand victorious beside one another.”

34

IRAQ One of Hugo Chávez’s priorities in the early years of his presidency was to revive the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), with a view to securing agreement that oil production should be reduced and the price should be increased. Having set a date for a full OPEC summit (only the second in the group’s history, and the first in 25 years), he went on a tour of all ten OPEC nations in order to personally invite each head of state to the summit. This itinerary necessarily included Iraq, an OPEC member.

Chávez’s visit to Iraq in August 2000 sent waves of controversy, outrage and anxiety across the western world.

The two leaders had extended discussions, described by Chávez as fruitful. “I found him an educated man who understands everything linked to OPEC.” Chávez and his colleagues also took the opportunity to denounce the sanctions regime responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. “President Chavez affirmed the Venezuelan position supporting any accord against any kind of boycott or sanctions that are applied against Iraq or any other country in the world,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Jorge Valero.

“Washington declared they were totally opposed to my visit to Baghdad. I told them I was going anyway; they argued there was a no-fly zone I couldn’t pass through or they might shoot down the plane. But we went to Baghdad anyway and spoke to Saddam.” (Cited in Bart Jones ‘The Hugo Chavez Story’).

One fascinating outcome of Chávez’s efforts is that, a few weeks after his visit to Baghdad, on the sidelines of the OPEC summit in Caracas, Iran and Iraq held their highest-level talks since the bitter and horrific war between the two countries (which lasted from 1980 to 1988 and resulted in at least a million casualties). Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan said that the talks between him and Iranian President Mohammad Khatami had been “cordial and frank. We discussed co-operation between the two countries and agreed to work jointly for the improvement of relations between the two countries.” Chávez commented: “I am at their service to help… the full reactivation of relations between two fraternal people, two fraternal countries, which are also members of OPEC, and which are calling for a boost of reunification of the whole Arab-Islamic world.”

Chávez was in fact the first head of state to visit Iraq since the imposition of UN sanctions in 1991. In order to side-step the international flight ban in place against Iraq, Chávez and his team crossed into Iraq from Iran by land and were then flown to Baghdad by helicopter. There he was received in person by Saddam Hussein, who drove him round Baghdad for a late-night tour of the city.

Responding to criticism from the ‘international community’, Chávez stated defiantly: “We regret and denounce the interference in our internal affairs. We do not and will not accept it… We are very happy to be in Baghdad, to smell the scent of history and to walk on the bank of the Tigris River.”

That Chávez was willing and able to facilitate this process speaks to his strategic brilliance and his long-term vision. Fully understanding the painful history of enmity between Iran and Iraq; fully understanding how arduous the road of reconciliation was likely to be; he nonetheless recognised that diffusing the tension between these two great nations would be a significant boost to the global anti-imperialist front.

Its side-effects might have included reconciliation between Iraq and Syria (the latter being a close ally of Iran), between Iraq and Libya (which had supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq War), between Iran and the Arab world in general, and among the different Palestinian factions. Had this process of rapprochement reached its logical conclusion, the region as a whole would have been in a much stronger position in its ongoing struggle against 35

imperialism and zionism. It would have pushed forward the Palestinain struggle for selfdetermination, and it may have prevented the disastrous Iraq war in which over a million Iraqis lost their lives. Indeed, the prospect of regional unity based on Iran-Iraq reconciliation may well have been one of the factors that informed the US and Britain’s decision to launch their invasion of Iraq in 2003.

CUBA

A series of mutually beneficial deals were signed in 2000 which have been an economic lifeline for Cuba and which have been crucial to the success of Venezuela’s social programmes. The Barrio Adentro community healthcare programme has brought Cuban medical expertise to millions of poor Venezuelans. According to official estimates, it has “saved the lives of 1.5 million Venezuelans. Another 1.5 million Venezuelans have also received free eye surgery from Mission Miracle, a similar health care programme founded in 2004 to provide cost free optical care to residents.”

The most maligned state in the western hemisphere, Cuba has been hit hard over the years by an aggressively-enforced US economic and diplomatic blockade. Until recent decades, most Latin American governments steered clear of Cuba for fear of angering their paymasters north of the border. However, the situation has changed significantly in the last 15 years since the beginning of Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution.

Chávez never made a secret of his affection for Cuba, his admiration for Cuba’s socialism and militant internationalism, and his respect for Fidel Castro as a revolutionary.

“Fidel to me is a father, a comrade, a master of perfect strategy.” Hugo Chavez, 2005.

Visiting Cuba in 1999, Chávez told the audience at the University of Havana that “Venezuela is traveling towards the same sea as the Cuban people, a sea of happiness and of real social justice and peace… Here we are, as alert as ever, Fidel and Hugo, fighting with dignity and courage to defend the interests of our people, and to bring alive the idea of Bolívar and Martí. In the name of Cuba and Venezuela, I appeal for the unity of our two peoples, and of the revolutions that we both lead.

Bolívar and Martí, one country united!” (cited in Richard Gott Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution). Defending Cuba against claims that it’s a ‘dictatorship’, Chávez pointed out that Cuba has much deeper and broader forms of democracy than those countries making the accusations. “People have asked me how I can support Fidel if he’s a dictator. But Cuba doesn’t have a dictatorship… It’s a revolutionary democracy.”

Further: “More than 53,000 Venezuelans have received free health care for chronic diseases in Cuba thanks to a bilateral agreement signed between the two Latin American nations that has increased social services and improved the quality of life for residents of Venezuela.” Additionally, Cuba has provided expertise and support for Venezuela’s literacy programme, which has been successful in wiping out illiteracy.

Venezuela pays for these crucial services with free or heavily discounted oil, which is an enormous boost for the Cuban economy. Venezuela has also helped Cuba with billions of dollars’ worth of loans, investments and grants. In doing so, it has knowingly and proudly broken the US economic blockade of Cuba. In an extended interview given to Aleida Guevara, Chávez notes: “Before, Venezuela didn’t sell oil to Cuba. Why not? Because of a ruling from Washington, because of the blockade, and the Helms-Burton Law. We don’t give a damn about this, Cuba is our sister country and we will sell to Cuba.”

36

“Chávez rooted us in the basis of the widest possible unity – unity with anyone with the slightest chance of joining forces against imperialism”.

MULTIPOLARITY: BREAKING DOWN THE EMPIRE Chávez came under a great deal of criticism from the US for his relationship with Cuba. Needless to say, this didn’t affect him.

“I will never tire of acknowledging Cuba’s fantastic support, of highlighting it and expressing my gratitude in public, wherever I am and whoever I am with, in whatever world forum I happen to be addressing, regardless of how many faces burn with anger because I refer to Cuba in these terms… [At the Monterrey Summit of the Americas in 2003] they told me Bush was burning with anger. I was not looking at him, but afterwards I was told he turned red and sat motionless in his chair. I had mentioned Cuba three times. I had thanked the Cuban people and Fidel for their support. I have no regrets about that… That is what Gaddafi said to me when I told him by telephone what had happened in Monterrey. He asked why Cuba had not been at the meeting for the entire continent of the Americas. ‘Ah well! That’s because the US excluded Cuba.’ He said to me, ‘Listen Hugo, on one occasion here in Africa, the British tried to prevent Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, attending a European Union meeting on Africa.

We said that if Mugabe didn’t go then nobody would. Latin America should do the same.'”

(Cited in Aleida Guevara Chávez, Venezuela and the New Latin America) The mere mention of the names Castro, Gaddafi and Mugabe in the same paragraph is enough to make liberal-left social democrats wince, such is their desire for acceptability; such is their enslavement to the western imperialist propaganda machine. Chávez, on the other hand, didn’t let the imperialists influence his thought one bit. He simply got on with the job of building the global antiimperialist front by any means necessary. As Argentina’s ambassador to the UK, Alicia Castro, put it at a recent Venezuela Solidarity Campaign conference:

With the decline of US economic and political hegemony, the rise of China, the emergence of progressive Latin America, and the resurgence of Russia since the end of the Yeltsin era, the world is moving inexorably towards a ‘multipolar’ model – “a pattern of multiple centres of power, all with a certain capacity to influence world affairs, shaping a negotiated order” (Jenny Clegg, China’s Global Strategy). China has been particularly active in promoting multipolarity as a realistic means of containing imperialism and creating a democratic and stable world order in which formerly oppressed countries can develop in peace. Hugo Chávez was a strong supporter of this concept, linking it back to Venezuela’s independence hero Simón Bolívar: “Bolívar engendered an international idea.

He spoke of what today we call a multipolar world.

He proposed the unification of South and Central America into what he called Greater Colombia, to enable negotiations on an equal basis with the other three quarters of the globe. This was his multipolar vision.” (Cited in Bart Jones The Hugo Chávez Story)

Regional integration Chávez energetically pursued regional integration within South America, Central America and the Caribbean as a means of creating a united, progressive force that could indeed engage “on an equal basis with the other three quarters of the globe.” The Nicaraguan anti-imperialist analysts Jorge Capelán and Toni Solo write that “in Latin America, it is impossible to engage in the construction of socialist and anti-capitalist alternatives without at the same time struggling to integrate the region politically, economically and even culturally… That is the legacy of Bolivar, as was the legacy of Martí, of Sandino, Mariátegui, Gaitán, Che, Fidel Castro and many other Latin American revolutionaries since Independence. This 37

is so because the colonial and imperial powers needed to split the region up into small countries in order to exploit its resources and labour. This is not something Chavez made up, it is an old insight down here.”

This project has been pursued through the creation of various organisations of regional integration – in particular ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America), CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) and UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) – and through providing inspiration and practical support to other Latin American and Caribbean nations with similar visions, for example by providing the poorer countries in the region with access to Venezuelan oil on preferential terms. What we are witnessing in the present era is the emergence of a Latin America which is increasingly dominated by progressive countries and which is moving confidently towards integration and solidarity.

Spanish analyst Ignacio Ramonet comments that Chavez’s “example has been followed, with different shades, in other countries. In Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, among others, there has been a series of processes which, to a certain degree, have advanced along the road opened by the Bolivarian Revolution.”

With the leadership of Chávez and Lula in particular, Latin America has been able to get closer to economic sovereignty than it has ever been. In 2005, the US plan for a free trade zone in the Americas (Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was comprehensively defeated at the Summit of The Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina. “Without the joint leadership of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Lula da Silva and late Argentinean president Néstor Kirchner, this strategic defeat of imperialism in Latin America would not have been possible.”

FRIENDSHIP WITH CHINA Beyond Latin America, Chávez worked hard to establish firm friendships with the world’s major developing powers, in particular China and Russia – which countries Fidel Castro recently described as “the two countries called upon to lead a new world which will allow for human survival, if imperialism does not first unleash a criminal, exterminating war.”

Bart Jones writes that Chavez’s “biggest international initiative outside of Latin America involved China… China’s starving energy market made it a perfect match for Chávez’s plans to divest himself as much as possible from the United States and foster a multipolar world.

He struck a deal to send China oil. It started with a commitment in 2005 to supply thirty thousand barrels a day. By 2007 that was to jump to three hundred thousand, with an ultimate goal of half a million barrels a day by 2009 or 2010. It was part of a plan to increase from 15 percent to 45 percent the amount of its crude and other oil products Venezuela sent to Asia.”

Chávez clearly saw China as a crucial partner in the struggle for a new world, visiting six times over the course of his presidency and forging close economic, diplomatic and political relations.

On his first trip, in 1999, he expressed his admiration for the Chinese economic model of market socialism, declaring: “We are witnessing the triumph of the Chinese revolution.” The Chinese model, with the state controlling the commanding heights of the economy whilst encouraging regulated private enterprise for less crucial areas, has played an important role in informing Venezuela’s own economic policy over the last 15 years.

38

In 2006, Chávez angered imperialists and liberals the world over by describing the Chinese revolution as “one of the greatest events of the 20th century”, and saying that Chinese socialism is “an example for Western leaders and governments that claim capitalism is the only alternative.” During Chávez’s tenure, Venezuela quickly became one of China’s key allies in Latin America, and Chávez was considered as a “great friend of the Chinese people”.

Celebrating the emergence of China as a major world power, Chávez pointed out the fundamental difference between the role of China – which has developed through its own diligence and persistence – and the colonialist/imperialist powers, who built their wealth on the basis of plunder, genocide, coups, terror and exploitation.

“China is large but it’s not an empire. China doesn’t trample on anyone, it hasn’t invaded anyone, it doesn’t go around dropping bombs on anyone.”

Chávez’s successor, Nicolas Maduro, follows up on this point: “China practises international relations on the basis of equality. It shows that, just starting the 21st century, it is possible to build a new world power without the imperialist practice of colonisation and domination.”

Venezuela has been the recipient of extensive infrastructure investment and large, friendly loans from China that have been critical for sustaining the social programmes and the development of industrialisation. By paying China in oil (to the tune of approximately 600,000 barrels a day), Venezuela is able to work towards its aim of trade diversification. “Since 2001 Venezuela and China have signed 480 cooperation agreements and participated in 143 joint projects… From 2005 to 2012 China lent Venezuela US$47 billion, accounting for 55% of Chinese credit issued to South American nations in that period.” The relationship continues to deepen, with Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Venezuela resulting in 38 new agreements worth 18 billion USD, including “a

US$4 billion direct loan for Venezuela and US$14 billion in Chinese financing for development projects in energy, mining, industry, technology, communications, transport, housing and culture” (ibid).

FRIENDSHIP WITH RUSSIA Of course, the battles to defend Venezuela, to integrate Latin America and to build a multipolar world are not solely economic or diplomatic. The prevailing military dominance of the US and its allies means that anti-imperialist forces must be able to defend their gains with arms. Himself a military man, Comandante Chávez never tired of stating that the Venezuelan Revolution is “peaceful but armed”.

If, in the broad division of labour connected with building a multipolar world, China is the economic powerhouse, then Russia is taking the lead on military matters.

An obituary on Russia Today noted that, since 2005, “Venezuela has purchased $4 billion worth of arms from Russia, including 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles, and the two countries have held joint naval exercises in the Caribbean Sea. In 2010, Chavez announced that Russia would build Venezuela’s first nuclear power station, and that the nation had agreed to a further $1.6 billion in oil contracts with Moscow.” Nicolas Maduro, who was foreign minister at the time, was clear on the global significance of his country’s relationship with Russia: “The unipolar world is collapsing and finishing in all aspects, and the alliance with Russia is part of that effort to build a multipolar world.”

39

Speaking very plainly after the purchase of a consignment of S300 surface-to-air missiles from Russia in 2009, Chávez said: “With these rockets it’s going to be very difficult for foreign planes to come and bomb us.” Given the fate of Libya just two years later, it would be difficult to argue that the Venezuelan president was suffering from paranoia.

Over the course of the last decade, Russia’s increasing alignment with the Global South has been a huge boost for the forces of multipolarity and anti-imperialism, especially when contrasted with the dark days of clientelism under the buffoon Yeltsin. Russia has taken on this role with poise, recognising that its continued independence and development is closely bound up with the success of China, Africa and Latin America. Vladimir Putin reportedly told Chávez that the latter’s re-election in 2012 was the “best present I could have for my 60th birthday”; and, a few months after Chávez’s death, Nicolas Maduro presided over the naming ceremony for Hugo Chávez Street in Moscow.

March forward in the name of Hugo Chávez The untimely death of this brilliant human being was a terrible blow for progressive humanity to bear, and leaves a gap which is very difficult to fill. One has to guard against hero worship and the Hollywood-style individualised version of history, but there’s no denying that certain people – through their strength of purpose, their understanding, their determination, their heroism, their leadership skills, their creative brilliance, their charisma, their devotion to the people – play an outstanding role.

Hugo Chávez was such a person. He worked ceaselessly in pursuit of his vision: for a socialist Venezuela; for a united and sovereign Latin America; and for a fair, multipolar world order free from imperialist domination. His vision was infectious, and served to inspire people around the world. He breathed life into a global revolutionary process that had been little in evidence since the upswing of the 1970s (Mozambique, Angola, Chile (1970-73), Guinea Bissau, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe).

In the intervening period we saw the decline and fall of the ‘Eastern Bloc’, the rise of neoliberal economics, the spread of ‘structural adjustment’, the genocidal impact of HIV/AIDS, and a deep disillusionment among much of the left. The Bolivarian Revolution, combined with China’s rise and an emerging multipolar world, has brought new hope.

Speaking recently at the July 26 Historical Museum in Santiago de Cuba, Xi Jinping said: “Revolutionary martyrs are precious spiritual treasures that have inspired us to continuously march forward.” May the work, example and ideas of Hugo Chávez continue to inspire and educate us, and may his revolutionary internationalism continue to be studied and honoured. www.invent-the-future.org

The views expressed here are the author’s own

40

40