Historic Latino Congreso Takes Strong Anti-War Stand
by Medea Benjamin
Billed as the most comprehensive gathering of Latino leaders in the US in three decades, over 1,600 delegates and observers attended the Latino Congreso in Los Angeles from September 6-10. The Congreso grew out of the massive mobilizations of Latinos this spring for immigrant rights, and was a forum to discuss not only the status of immigration reform, but also a wide range of issues from how to best use Latino voting power to global warming to the economic empowerment of Latino communities. Mayor Antonio Villarraigosa and numerous Latino Congresspeople greeted the participants, who represented a diversity of labor, student, environmental, health and community development groups.
The convention was organized by some of the largest Latino advocacy groups in the nation, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the William C. Velásquez Institute and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).
The war in Iraq was not high on the agenda. Of the dozens of workshops and plenaries, only one session was dedicated to the war—a panel that included Fernando Suarez del Solar, a man who lost his son Jesus in Iraq and has been speaking out against the war ever since. But the elected officials who addressed the crowd—Congresspeople, mayors, city council members—failed to mention the war, and when Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez spoke at a reception for Latina leaders, she advised Latinos to enroll in schools like West Point and the Naval Academy so they could get good jobs in the military.
When the delegates convened in a plenary session to discuss proposed resolutions, however, the first to come up was an anti-war resolution proposed by Rosalio Muñoz, coordinator of a group called Latinos for Peace and a veteran of the Chicano Moratorium against the war in Vietnam. The resolution represented a radical position for a Congress sponsored mainly by organizations that have never taken a public stand on the war, in part because many of their members are military families and they don’t want to appear disrespectful to the soldiers.
Entitled “US Withdrawal from Iraq War”, it condemned the aggressive recruitment of Latino youth into the military, the spending of billions on war instead of much-needed community services, and the post-9/11 racial profiling that has hurt all people of color. It called for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a foreign policy focused on diplomacy and peaceful development.
“Polls show that 70% of Latinos oppose this disastrous war,” said Muñoz, “but few Latinos have been speaking out. It’s time for that to change.”
Amendments were proposed from the floor to make the resolution even stronger, like calling on elected Latino officials to take leadership in promoting legislation to bring the troops home. To the surprise of even Muñoz, not one delegate spoke out against the resolution, and when the voice vote occurred, a lone “nay” was overwhelmed by a sea of emphatic “ayes.”
Among those delighted with the vote was Fernando Suarez del Solar. “Ever since my son was killed in Iraq, I’ve been trying to organize the Latino community to come out against the war,” said Suarez del Solar, “but many of our elected leaders and community organizations have been afraid to step forward for fear of being labeled unpatriotic. So the passage of this resolution represents an important milestone in our community.”
Another indication of the strong anti-war sentiment at the Congreso came from the enthusiastic response to a petition being circulated by the women’s peace group CODEPINK called Give Peace a Vote. Part of a coalition effort of Voters for Peace designed to create a strong anti-war voting bloc, the petition asks people to pledge that they will only vote for candidates who support a speedy withdrawal from Iraq and no future wars of aggression.
“People were so eager to sign and were thankful for a way to express their outrage against this war,” said Edith Mendez from CODEPINK, one of the signature-gatherers.
One of those eager to sign was Jose Carrillo, a delegate from Wisconsin and a union official with the United Auto Workers. Carrillo has two sons in the military who are presently serving in Iraq. “Latinos often join the military because they have a sense of responsibility to serve this country and the want to prove they are patriotic Americans,” he said. “It’s important to honor the sacrifices our soldiers are making, but at the same time we have to speak out against what many of us consider an unjust war.”
Rosa Furumoro, a professor of Chicano Studies and a speaker on the anti-war panel, said that more and more Latinos are becoming concerned about the militarization of the public schools. “With the military reaching all the way down to our elementary schools,” she said, “we see our youth being socialized to go to war while students in wealthier communities are being socialized to become doctors, lawyers and businessmen.”
While Latinos have historically been underrepresented in the military, this is rapidly changing, with recruiters aiming to bring Latino representation up to 22% of recruits, almost double what it is today.
Daniela Conde, a student at UCLA and a member of the student group MEChA, echoed the concern about the aggressive recruitment of Latino youth. “I began to understand how the war has affected my community when I saw my friends being recruited into the military and how they became dehumanized. I want to see the high schools preparing Latino youth for college, not for war. And I want to see this country spending money on uplifting poor communities, not killing people overseas.”
Antonio Gonzales, one of the key organizers of the event and a heavy hitter in the Latino community, was delighted by the open expression of anti-war sentiment at the Congreso. “An unjust war will always be opposed by Latinos because our fundamental principle is justice for all,” he said. “Now we have to find more effective ways to connect the Latino community with the peace movement.”
Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org) is cofounder of the human rights group Global Exchange and the peace group CODEPINK.
###
Monday, September 11, 2006
Sunday, September 10, 2006
National (?) Latino Conference
Latino Leaders Convene First National Latino Congress
in a Generation
By Aaron Glantz
OneWorld US
September 7, 2006
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138995/1/4536
SAN FRANCISCO,
Thousands of Latino community leaders from across the
country convened in Los Angeles Wednesday for what
organizers say is the first massive gathering of Latino
community leaders, organizations, and elected officials
since 1977.
"The Latino Congresso is deigned to do something that
the Congress in Washington is not doing--paying
attention to issues of importance to the Latino
community," explained John Trasvina, who heads up the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(MALDEF).
Organizers say 2,000 people will participate in the
four-day gathering, which is co-hosted by Los Angeles
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The goal is to come away
with a unified program on immigration, labor rights,
health care, the environment, and even foreign policy.
Equally important, organizers say, is to maintain
momentum gained in May, when millions rallied around
the country to protest a harsh immigration measure,
which had been passed by the House of Representatives.
The demonstrations forced Congress to shelve the
proposal, HR 4437, which would have made it a crime to
be an undocumented immigrant in the United States or to
help those who remain in the United States illegally.
It would have also required churches and non-profit
organizations to require proof of legal status before
providing charity and would have mandated construction
of a giant fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Having killed that measure, leaders in the Latino
community are hoping to gather enough momentum to push
forward a proposal they see as immigrant-friendly.
"We want Congress to be more practical in dealing with
the immigration issues. We want to deal with these
issues as a whole," Arizona State legislator Steve
Gallardo told OneWorld. "Controlling the border is
important but it's just one piece of the puzzle."
What immigrant groups want most, Gallardo said, is a
legal path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
"The fact is our job market is dependant on
undocumented workers," he argued. "Agriculture would
just falter if the undocumented were not there. Look at
the housing market. The State of Arizona had a $1
billion surplus and that was due to the housing market.
Who do you think builds that housing? Undocumented
immigrants."
Gallardo is part of a growing number of Latino
officials elected nationally as the ethnic group grows
in population and a higher percentage become citizens.
Three Latinos currently serve in the U.S. Senate--the
highest number in history. Twenty-three serve in the
House of Representatives. There are 232 Latino state
law-makers--almost double a decade ago.
But Gallardo said that rise in representation is
creating a backlash. In 2004, the State of Arizona
passed Proposition 200, which barred all state services
for undocumented immigrants. New measures have been
introduced every year since. This fall, Arizona voters
will consider a proposition forbidding judges to grant
bail to the undocumented.
The trend has hardly been limited to Arizona. In
California, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger ousted
incumbent Democrat Gray Davis pledging to revoke
driving license privileges for undocumented immigrants.
"What you're seeing now is a reaction by the entire
country for some kind of immigration reform," Gallardo
said.
In such an environment, Latino organizers are looking
toward this week's Congress in Los Angeles, which will
conclude Sunday with a get-out-the-vote training, as a
way to put forward a united front.
"This Congress comes at a time when the Latino
community is mobilized," said Angela Sanbrano, head of
the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean
Communities (NALACC). "We not only need to march. We
also need to develop policies and strategies that show
that our marches have impact on policies at all levels
of government."
in a Generation
By Aaron Glantz
OneWorld US
September 7, 2006
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138995/1/4536
SAN FRANCISCO,
Thousands of Latino community leaders from across the
country convened in Los Angeles Wednesday for what
organizers say is the first massive gathering of Latino
community leaders, organizations, and elected officials
since 1977.
"The Latino Congresso is deigned to do something that
the Congress in Washington is not doing--paying
attention to issues of importance to the Latino
community," explained John Trasvina, who heads up the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(MALDEF).
Organizers say 2,000 people will participate in the
four-day gathering, which is co-hosted by Los Angeles
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The goal is to come away
with a unified program on immigration, labor rights,
health care, the environment, and even foreign policy.
Equally important, organizers say, is to maintain
momentum gained in May, when millions rallied around
the country to protest a harsh immigration measure,
which had been passed by the House of Representatives.
The demonstrations forced Congress to shelve the
proposal, HR 4437, which would have made it a crime to
be an undocumented immigrant in the United States or to
help those who remain in the United States illegally.
It would have also required churches and non-profit
organizations to require proof of legal status before
providing charity and would have mandated construction
of a giant fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Having killed that measure, leaders in the Latino
community are hoping to gather enough momentum to push
forward a proposal they see as immigrant-friendly.
"We want Congress to be more practical in dealing with
the immigration issues. We want to deal with these
issues as a whole," Arizona State legislator Steve
Gallardo told OneWorld. "Controlling the border is
important but it's just one piece of the puzzle."
What immigrant groups want most, Gallardo said, is a
legal path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
"The fact is our job market is dependant on
undocumented workers," he argued. "Agriculture would
just falter if the undocumented were not there. Look at
the housing market. The State of Arizona had a $1
billion surplus and that was due to the housing market.
Who do you think builds that housing? Undocumented
immigrants."
Gallardo is part of a growing number of Latino
officials elected nationally as the ethnic group grows
in population and a higher percentage become citizens.
Three Latinos currently serve in the U.S. Senate--the
highest number in history. Twenty-three serve in the
House of Representatives. There are 232 Latino state
law-makers--almost double a decade ago.
But Gallardo said that rise in representation is
creating a backlash. In 2004, the State of Arizona
passed Proposition 200, which barred all state services
for undocumented immigrants. New measures have been
introduced every year since. This fall, Arizona voters
will consider a proposition forbidding judges to grant
bail to the undocumented.
The trend has hardly been limited to Arizona. In
California, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger ousted
incumbent Democrat Gray Davis pledging to revoke
driving license privileges for undocumented immigrants.
"What you're seeing now is a reaction by the entire
country for some kind of immigration reform," Gallardo
said.
In such an environment, Latino organizers are looking
toward this week's Congress in Los Angeles, which will
conclude Sunday with a get-out-the-vote training, as a
way to put forward a united front.
"This Congress comes at a time when the Latino
community is mobilized," said Angela Sanbrano, head of
the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean
Communities (NALACC). "We not only need to march. We
also need to develop policies and strategies that show
that our marches have impact on policies at all levels
of government."
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Mexican Left to create parallel government
Mexico Leftist to Create Parallel Gov't
- By MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
(08-29) 14:12 PDT MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) --
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, convinced he won't be awarded the presidency, has vowed to create a parallel leftist government and is urging Mexicans not to recognize the apparent victory of the ruling party's Felipe Calderon.
While his party lacks the seats in Congress to block legislation, Lopez Obrador can mobilize millions to pressure his conservative rival to adopt the left's agenda — or to clamp down and risk a backlash.
Both scenarios are possibilities as the former Mexico City mayor lays out plans to create his own government to rule from the streets, with the support of thousands who are already occupying protest camps throughout downtown Mexico City.
Some predict his parallel initiative — which Lopez Obrador's supporters call the "legitimate government" — could turn those protest camps into the core of a violent revolt, especially if the government tries to shut it down.
Such violence broke out in the southern city of Oaxaca after Gov. Ulises Ruiz sent police to evict striking teachers. Outraged citizens' groups joined the protests, setting fire to buildings and public buses, seizing radio and TV stations and forcing the closure of businesses in a city known throughout the world as a quaint tourist destination.
"Everything we do, from property taxes to permits to natural resources, will go through the 'legitimate government,'" said Severina Martinez, a school teacher from Oaxaca camped out in a tent in Mexico City's main Zocalo plaza. "We won't have anything to do with the official government."
Some supporters took out a newspaper ad Tuesday, calling on Lopez Obrador to set up his own treasury department and said all Mexicans "should channel federal revenues to the new treasury department."
Lopez Obrador is encouraging his followers to disobey Calderon, whose 240,000-vote advantage was confirmed Monday by the country's top electoral court. The seven magistrates stopped short of declaring Calderon president-elect, but they have only a week to declare a winner or annul the election.
"We do not recognize Felipe Calderon as president, nor any officials he appoints, nor any acts carried out by his de-facto government," Lopez Obrador said after the court ruling, which he claims overlooked evidence of fraud in the July 2 elections.
Lopez Obrador's Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, increased its number of congressional seats in those elections and became the second-largest bloc, behind Calderon's National Action Party, on Tuesday as new lawmakers were sworn in.
But it holds only a quarter of the seats — not enough to block legislation, especially if Calderon forges a likely alliance with the former ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party. That alliance would hold a majority in each house of Congress.
Lopez Obrador has ruled out negotiations with what he calls the "spurious" and "imposed" government. Because PRD legislators fear crossing him or his fervent followers, they can't cut deals to get their own legislation approved, making them even weaker.
"There is no possibility that we federal legislators in Congress will start any dialogue with the government," said PRD Senate leader Carlos Navarette, considered one of the party's moderates. "We will never forget that the leader and director of the Mexican people's action and the left is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador."
Lopez Obrador's plan is to have his government help the poor, oppose privatizations and make the news media — which he has accused of ignoring him — more "truthful and objective."
It's not clear how he plans to do that, but his supporters are already planning to hold an alternative swearing in ceremony to rival the official inauguration on Dec. 1.
People close to Lopez Obrador say he is assuming the role of his hero, 18th century President Benito Juarez, who led a roving, "unofficial" presidency from 1863 to 1867 during the French invasion, before driving out the invaders and executing the French-installed Emperor Maximilian.
"Juarez ran the government from a carriage and restored the republic," said Rosario Ibarra, a human rights activist who frequently shares the stage with Lopez Obrador at his rallies. "We just hope there won't be any need to shoot anyone."
So far, protesters have only scuffled with police. Some fear the movement could turn violent, although Lopez Obrador says it will remain peaceful.
The administration of President Vicente Fox hopes it will all just boil down to some fiery rhetoric and posturing.
"We think this is a symbolic, political act that has no validity in the affairs of state," Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Tuesday. Asked about Lopez Obrador's plan to declare himself head of state, Aguilar noted that "in this country, everyone is free to say whatever they want."
There is no question that Lopez Obrador is taking his "legitimate government" or "government in resistance" — the exact title has yet to be determined — very seriously.
Asked whether Lopez Obrador would wear some version of the presidential sash during his swearing-in ceremony, PRD spokesman Gerardo Fernandez accused reporters of poking fun at the candidate. He also upbraided those who spoke of plans for an "alternative government."
"What Andres Manuel has suggested is not an alternative president," Fernandez said. "It will be a legitimate government with a legitimate president."
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/08/29/international/i141204D66.DTL
- By MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
(08-29) 14:12 PDT MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) --
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, convinced he won't be awarded the presidency, has vowed to create a parallel leftist government and is urging Mexicans not to recognize the apparent victory of the ruling party's Felipe Calderon.
While his party lacks the seats in Congress to block legislation, Lopez Obrador can mobilize millions to pressure his conservative rival to adopt the left's agenda — or to clamp down and risk a backlash.
Both scenarios are possibilities as the former Mexico City mayor lays out plans to create his own government to rule from the streets, with the support of thousands who are already occupying protest camps throughout downtown Mexico City.
Some predict his parallel initiative — which Lopez Obrador's supporters call the "legitimate government" — could turn those protest camps into the core of a violent revolt, especially if the government tries to shut it down.
Such violence broke out in the southern city of Oaxaca after Gov. Ulises Ruiz sent police to evict striking teachers. Outraged citizens' groups joined the protests, setting fire to buildings and public buses, seizing radio and TV stations and forcing the closure of businesses in a city known throughout the world as a quaint tourist destination.
"Everything we do, from property taxes to permits to natural resources, will go through the 'legitimate government,'" said Severina Martinez, a school teacher from Oaxaca camped out in a tent in Mexico City's main Zocalo plaza. "We won't have anything to do with the official government."
Some supporters took out a newspaper ad Tuesday, calling on Lopez Obrador to set up his own treasury department and said all Mexicans "should channel federal revenues to the new treasury department."
Lopez Obrador is encouraging his followers to disobey Calderon, whose 240,000-vote advantage was confirmed Monday by the country's top electoral court. The seven magistrates stopped short of declaring Calderon president-elect, but they have only a week to declare a winner or annul the election.
"We do not recognize Felipe Calderon as president, nor any officials he appoints, nor any acts carried out by his de-facto government," Lopez Obrador said after the court ruling, which he claims overlooked evidence of fraud in the July 2 elections.
Lopez Obrador's Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, increased its number of congressional seats in those elections and became the second-largest bloc, behind Calderon's National Action Party, on Tuesday as new lawmakers were sworn in.
But it holds only a quarter of the seats — not enough to block legislation, especially if Calderon forges a likely alliance with the former ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party. That alliance would hold a majority in each house of Congress.
Lopez Obrador has ruled out negotiations with what he calls the "spurious" and "imposed" government. Because PRD legislators fear crossing him or his fervent followers, they can't cut deals to get their own legislation approved, making them even weaker.
"There is no possibility that we federal legislators in Congress will start any dialogue with the government," said PRD Senate leader Carlos Navarette, considered one of the party's moderates. "We will never forget that the leader and director of the Mexican people's action and the left is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador."
Lopez Obrador's plan is to have his government help the poor, oppose privatizations and make the news media — which he has accused of ignoring him — more "truthful and objective."
It's not clear how he plans to do that, but his supporters are already planning to hold an alternative swearing in ceremony to rival the official inauguration on Dec. 1.
People close to Lopez Obrador say he is assuming the role of his hero, 18th century President Benito Juarez, who led a roving, "unofficial" presidency from 1863 to 1867 during the French invasion, before driving out the invaders and executing the French-installed Emperor Maximilian.
"Juarez ran the government from a carriage and restored the republic," said Rosario Ibarra, a human rights activist who frequently shares the stage with Lopez Obrador at his rallies. "We just hope there won't be any need to shoot anyone."
So far, protesters have only scuffled with police. Some fear the movement could turn violent, although Lopez Obrador says it will remain peaceful.
The administration of President Vicente Fox hopes it will all just boil down to some fiery rhetoric and posturing.
"We think this is a symbolic, political act that has no validity in the affairs of state," Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Tuesday. Asked about Lopez Obrador's plan to declare himself head of state, Aguilar noted that "in this country, everyone is free to say whatever they want."
There is no question that Lopez Obrador is taking his "legitimate government" or "government in resistance" — the exact title has yet to be determined — very seriously.
Asked whether Lopez Obrador would wear some version of the presidential sash during his swearing-in ceremony, PRD spokesman Gerardo Fernandez accused reporters of poking fun at the candidate. He also upbraided those who spoke of plans for an "alternative government."
"What Andres Manuel has suggested is not an alternative president," Fernandez said. "It will be a legitimate government with a legitimate president."
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/08/29/international/i141204D66.DTL
WOPs, With Out Papers
Wop
Derogatory slang term for Italian immigrants. Meaning, With Out Papers. An immigrant without papers. In the current U.S. press, this person is called an Illegal alien. What is the difference between the current persons without documents ( Wops) and the traditional immigrants of Italian, Irish, Finnish, German, and other immigrant groups?
The difference is changes in the U.S. immigration law. These laws began to change after 1900. They were further racialized in the 1920’s. The 1960’s Civil Rights Act made racial discrimination in immigration law.
The current WOPs seek the same opportunities to earn a living and to feed their families as earlier immigrants.
Instead of calling them “illegal aliens” I recommend use of WOP.
Derogatory slang term for Italian immigrants. Meaning, With Out Papers. An immigrant without papers. In the current U.S. press, this person is called an Illegal alien. What is the difference between the current persons without documents ( Wops) and the traditional immigrants of Italian, Irish, Finnish, German, and other immigrant groups?
The difference is changes in the U.S. immigration law. These laws began to change after 1900. They were further racialized in the 1920’s. The 1960’s Civil Rights Act made racial discrimination in immigration law.
The current WOPs seek the same opportunities to earn a living and to feed their families as earlier immigrants.
Instead of calling them “illegal aliens” I recommend use of WOP.
Evo Morales from Bolivia: Capitalism has only hurt Latin America
"Capitalism Has Only Hurt Latin America"
DER SPIEGAL
Bolivia's President Evo Morales, 46, talks to DER
SPIEGEL about reform plans for his country, socialism
in Latin America, and the often tense relations of the
region's leftists with the United States.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, why is such a large part of
Latin America moving to the left?
Morales: Injustice, inequality and the poverty of the
masses compel us to seek better living conditions.
Bolivia's majority Indian population was always
excluded, politically oppressed and culturally
alienated. Our national wealth, our raw materials, was
plundered. Indios were once treated like animals here.
In the 1930s and 40s, they were sprayed with DDT to
kill the vermin on their skin and in their hair
whenever they came into the city. My mother wasn't
even allowed to set foot in the capital of her native
region, Oruro. Now we're in the government and in
parliament. For me, being leftist means fighting
against injustice and inequality but, most of all, we
want to live well.
SPIEGEL: You called a constitutional convention to
establish a new Bolivian republic. What should the new
Bolivia look like?
Morales: We don't want to oppress or exclude anyone.
The new republic should be based on diversity, respect
and equal rights for all. There is a lot to do. Child
mortality is frighteningly high. I had six siblings
and four them died. In the countryside, half of all
children die before reaching their first birthday.
SPIEGEL: Your socialist party, MAS, does not have the
necessary two-thirds majority amend the constitution.
Do you now plan to negotiate with other political
factions?
Morales: We are always open to talks. Dialogue is the
basis of Indian culture, and we don't want to make any
enemies. Political and ideological adversaries,
perhaps, but not enemies.
SPIEGEL: Why did you temporarily suspend the
nationalization of natural resources, one of your
administration's most important projects? Does Bolivia
lack the know-how to extract its raw materials?
Morales: We are continuing to negotiate with the
companies in question. The current lack of investment
has nothing to do with nationalization. It's the fault
of the right-wing government of (former president)
Tuto Quiroga, who stopped all investment in natural
gas production in
2001 because, as he claimed, there was no domestic
market for natural gas in Bolivia. We plan to start
drilling again. We have signed a delivery agreement
for natural gas with Argentina, and we are also
cooperating with Venezuela. We have signed a contract
to work an iron mine with an Indian company. This will
create 7,000 direct and 10,000 indirect jobs. We have
negotiated much better prices and terms than our
predecessors.
SPIEGEL: But there are major problems with Brazil.
Bolivia is demanding a higher price for natural gas
shipments. Doesn't this harm your relationship with
(Brazilian) President Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva?
Morales: Lula is showing his solidarity. He behaves
like a big brother. But we are having problems with
Petrobras, the Brazilian energy company. The
negotiations are very difficult, but we are
optimistic.
SPIEGEL: Petrobras has threatened to end all of its
investments in Bolivia.
Morales: This isn't coming from the Brazilian
government, but from a few Petrobras executives. They
print these threats in the press to put us under
pressure. Brazil is a major power, but it has to treat
us with respect. Compañero Lula told me that there
will be a new agreement, and that he even wants to
import more gas.
SPIEGEL: Bolivia doesn't sell natural gas to Chile
because the Chileans took away Bolivia's access to the
sea in a war more than
120 years ago. Now a socialist is in power in Chile.
Will you supply them with natural gas now?
Morales: We want to overcome our historical problems
with Chile. The sea has divided us and the sea must
bring us back together again. Chile has agreed, for
the first time, to talk about sea access for Bolivia.
That's a huge step forward. The Chilean president came
to my inauguration, and I attended
(Chilean President) Michelle Bachelet's inauguration
in Santiago. We complement each other. Chile needs our
natural resources and we need access to the sea. Under
those circumstances, it must be possible to find a
solution in the interest of both countries.
SPIEGEL: What influence did Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez have on the nationalization of Bolivia's
natural resources?
Morales: None whatsoever. Neither Cuba nor Venezuela
was involved. I managed the nationalization myself.
Only seven of my closest associates knew about the
decree and the date. Although I did meet Chavez and
(Cuban leader) Fidel Castro in Cuba a few days before
the announcement, we didn't talk about
nationalization. I had already signed the decree
before I departed for Cuba, and the vice president
gave it to the cabinet. When Fidel asked me in Cuba
how far the project had progressed, I told him that we
planned to announce the nationalization in the coming
days, but I didn't give him a date. Fidel warned me to
wait until the constitutional convention. Chavez
wasn't aware of anything.
SPIEGEL: Chavez wants to install a socialism for the
21st century in Venezuela. His ideological advisor
Heinz Dieterich, a German, was recently in Bolivia. Do
you intend to introduce socialism in Bolivia?
Morales: If socialism means that we live well, that
there is equality and justice, and that we have no
social and economic problems, then I welcome it.
SPIEGEL: You admire Fidel Castro as the "grandfather
of all Latin American revolutionaries." What have you
learned from him?
Morales: Solidarity, most of all. Fidel helps us a
great deal. He has donated seven eye clinics and 20
basic hospitals. Cuban doctors have already performed
30,000 free cataract operations for Bolivians. Five
thousand Bolivians from poor backgrounds are studying
medicine at no charge in Cuba.
SPIEGEL: But Bolivian doctors are protesting the
Cubans' presence. They say that they deprive them of
their livelihood.
Morales: The Bolivian state doesn't pay the Cuban
doctors any salaries, so they're not taking anything
away from the Bolivians.
SPIEGEL: Do you know how Castro is doing?
Morales: Yes, I spoke with him on the phone today. He
has been feeling better for the last two days. He told
me that he'll be well enough to attend the summit of
nonaligned nations in Havana in September.
SPIEGEL: And he'll give a speech then?
Morales: Certainly. It's an opportunity he won't miss.
SPIEGEL: The Americans are worried that Chavez is
gaining too much influence. Aren't you making yourself
dependent on Venezuela?
Morales: What unites us with Chavez is the concept of
the integration of South America. This is the old
dream of a great fatherland, a dream that existed even
before the Spanish conquest, and Simon Bolivar fought
for it later on. We want a South America modeled after
the European Union, with a currency like the euro, one
that's worth more than the dollar. Chavez's oil is
unimportant for Bolivia. We only get diesel under
favorable terms. But we are not dependent on
Venezuela. We complement each other. Venezuela shares
its wealth with other countries, but that doesn't make
us subordinate.
SPIEGEL: The Latin American left is fracturing into a
moderate, social democratic current, led by Lula and
Bachelet, and a radical, populist movement represented
by Castro, Chavez and yourself. Isn't Chavez dividing
the continent?
Morales: There are social democrats and others who are
marching more in the direction of equality, whether
you call them socialists or communists. But at least
Latin America no longer has racist or fascist
presidents like it did in the past. Capitalism has
only hurt Latin America.
SPIEGEL: You are the first Indian president in
Bolivian history. What role will indigenous culture
play in your government?
Morales: We must combine our social consciousness with
professional competency. In my administration,
intellectuals from the upper class can be cabinet
ministers or ambassadors, as can members of Indian
ethnic groups.
SPIEGEL: Do you believe that the Indian peoples have
developed a better social model than the white,
Western democracies?
Morales: There was no private property in the past.
Everything was communal property. In the Indian
community where I was born, everything belonged to the
community. This way of life is more equitable. We
Indians are Latin America's moral reserve. We act
according to a universal law that consists of three
basic principles: do not steal, do not lie and do not
be idle. This trilogy will also serve as the basis of
our new constitution.
SPIEGEL: Is it true that all government employees will
be required to learn the Indian languages Quechua,
Aymara und Guaraní in the future?
Morales: Public servants in the cities are required to
learn the language of their region. If we already
speak Spanish in Bolivia, we should also be fluent in
our own languages.
SPIEGEL: Are the whites treating the Indians better,
now that you're in power?
Morales: It's gotten a lot better. The middle class,
intellectuals and the self-employed are now proud of
their Indian roots. Unfortunately, some oligarchic
groups continue to treat us as being inferior.
SPIEGEL: Some critics claim that the Indians in
Bolivia are now racist toward the whites.
Morales: That's part of a dirty war the mass media are
waging against us. Wealthy, racist businessmen own
much of the media.
SPIEGEL: The Catholic Church has accused you of
wanting to reform religious instruction. Will there be
no freedom of religion in Bolivia?
Morales: I am Catholic. Freedom of religion isn't at
issue. But I am opposed to a monopoly when it comes to
faith.
SPIEGEL: Some large landowners have threatened violent
resistance to the planned land reforms. Whose land do
you intend to seize?
Morales: We will expropriate large land holdings that
are not being farmed. But we want democratic and
peaceful agrarian reform. The 1952 land reform led to
the creation of many tiny, unproductive parcels in the
Andean highlands.
SPIEGEL: Bolivia is divided into the rich provinces in
the east and the poor Andean highlands. There is a
strong movement for autonomy in the east. Is the
country at risk of breaking apart?
Morales: This is what a few fascist, oligarchic groups
want. But they lost the vote over the constitutional
convention.
SPIEGEL: Bolivia is an important narcotics producer.
Your predecessors had illegal coca plantations
destroyed. Do you intend to do the same thing?
Morales: From our standpoint, coca should be neither
destroyed nor completely legalized. Farming should be
controlled by the state and by the coca farmers'
unions. We have launched an international campaign to
legalize coca leaves, and we want the United Nations
to remove coca from its list of toxic substances.
Scientists proved long ago that coca leaves are not
toxic. We decided on a voluntary reduction in the
amount of acreage being farmed.
SPIEGEL: But the United States claims that the
majority of the coca harvest ends up in the cocaine
trade.
Morales: The Americans say all kinds of things. They
accuse us of not fulfilling the conditions of their
development aid. My pro-capitalist predecessor
administrations supported the massacre of coca
farmers. More than 800 campesinos died in the war on
drugs. The United States is using its war on drugs as
an excuse to expand its control over Latin America.
SPIEGEL: The American Drug Enforcement Agency, the
DEA, has agents stationed in Bolivia who advise the
military and the police in their efforts to combat the
drug trade. Will you be sending them home now?
Morales: They're still here, but they are no longer in
uniform or armed, as they were before.
SPIEGEL: How is your relationship with the United
States? Do you plan to travel to Washington?
Morales: A meeting with (US President) George W. Bush
is not planned. I do intend to travel to New York to
visit the UN General Assembly. When I was still a
member of parliament, the Americans didn't let me into
the country. But heads of state don't need a visa to
travel to the UN in New York.
SPIEGEL: You broke your nose while playing soccer a
few weeks ago. Are you playing less these days?
Morales: Does my nose still look crooked? Playing
sports has always been my greatest pleasure. I don't
smoke, I hardly drink alcohol and I rarely dance,
although I used to play the trumpet. Sports helped get
me into the presidential palace. My first position in
the union was that of sports secretary. I was head of
a soccer club in the countryside when I was 13.
SPIEGEL: Why don't you wear a tie?
Morales: I never wore a tie voluntarily, even though I
was forced to wear one for photos when I was young and
for official events at school. I used to wrap my tie
in a newspaper, and whenever the teacher checked I
would quickly put it on again. I'm not used to it.
Most Bolivians don't wear ties.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, thank you for speaking with
us.
The interview was conducted by Jens Glüsing and Hans
Hoyng and was translated from German by Christopher
Sultan.
DER SPIEGAL
Bolivia's President Evo Morales, 46, talks to DER
SPIEGEL about reform plans for his country, socialism
in Latin America, and the often tense relations of the
region's leftists with the United States.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, why is such a large part of
Latin America moving to the left?
Morales: Injustice, inequality and the poverty of the
masses compel us to seek better living conditions.
Bolivia's majority Indian population was always
excluded, politically oppressed and culturally
alienated. Our national wealth, our raw materials, was
plundered. Indios were once treated like animals here.
In the 1930s and 40s, they were sprayed with DDT to
kill the vermin on their skin and in their hair
whenever they came into the city. My mother wasn't
even allowed to set foot in the capital of her native
region, Oruro. Now we're in the government and in
parliament. For me, being leftist means fighting
against injustice and inequality but, most of all, we
want to live well.
SPIEGEL: You called a constitutional convention to
establish a new Bolivian republic. What should the new
Bolivia look like?
Morales: We don't want to oppress or exclude anyone.
The new republic should be based on diversity, respect
and equal rights for all. There is a lot to do. Child
mortality is frighteningly high. I had six siblings
and four them died. In the countryside, half of all
children die before reaching their first birthday.
SPIEGEL: Your socialist party, MAS, does not have the
necessary two-thirds majority amend the constitution.
Do you now plan to negotiate with other political
factions?
Morales: We are always open to talks. Dialogue is the
basis of Indian culture, and we don't want to make any
enemies. Political and ideological adversaries,
perhaps, but not enemies.
SPIEGEL: Why did you temporarily suspend the
nationalization of natural resources, one of your
administration's most important projects? Does Bolivia
lack the know-how to extract its raw materials?
Morales: We are continuing to negotiate with the
companies in question. The current lack of investment
has nothing to do with nationalization. It's the fault
of the right-wing government of (former president)
Tuto Quiroga, who stopped all investment in natural
gas production in
2001 because, as he claimed, there was no domestic
market for natural gas in Bolivia. We plan to start
drilling again. We have signed a delivery agreement
for natural gas with Argentina, and we are also
cooperating with Venezuela. We have signed a contract
to work an iron mine with an Indian company. This will
create 7,000 direct and 10,000 indirect jobs. We have
negotiated much better prices and terms than our
predecessors.
SPIEGEL: But there are major problems with Brazil.
Bolivia is demanding a higher price for natural gas
shipments. Doesn't this harm your relationship with
(Brazilian) President Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva?
Morales: Lula is showing his solidarity. He behaves
like a big brother. But we are having problems with
Petrobras, the Brazilian energy company. The
negotiations are very difficult, but we are
optimistic.
SPIEGEL: Petrobras has threatened to end all of its
investments in Bolivia.
Morales: This isn't coming from the Brazilian
government, but from a few Petrobras executives. They
print these threats in the press to put us under
pressure. Brazil is a major power, but it has to treat
us with respect. Compañero Lula told me that there
will be a new agreement, and that he even wants to
import more gas.
SPIEGEL: Bolivia doesn't sell natural gas to Chile
because the Chileans took away Bolivia's access to the
sea in a war more than
120 years ago. Now a socialist is in power in Chile.
Will you supply them with natural gas now?
Morales: We want to overcome our historical problems
with Chile. The sea has divided us and the sea must
bring us back together again. Chile has agreed, for
the first time, to talk about sea access for Bolivia.
That's a huge step forward. The Chilean president came
to my inauguration, and I attended
(Chilean President) Michelle Bachelet's inauguration
in Santiago. We complement each other. Chile needs our
natural resources and we need access to the sea. Under
those circumstances, it must be possible to find a
solution in the interest of both countries.
SPIEGEL: What influence did Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez have on the nationalization of Bolivia's
natural resources?
Morales: None whatsoever. Neither Cuba nor Venezuela
was involved. I managed the nationalization myself.
Only seven of my closest associates knew about the
decree and the date. Although I did meet Chavez and
(Cuban leader) Fidel Castro in Cuba a few days before
the announcement, we didn't talk about
nationalization. I had already signed the decree
before I departed for Cuba, and the vice president
gave it to the cabinet. When Fidel asked me in Cuba
how far the project had progressed, I told him that we
planned to announce the nationalization in the coming
days, but I didn't give him a date. Fidel warned me to
wait until the constitutional convention. Chavez
wasn't aware of anything.
SPIEGEL: Chavez wants to install a socialism for the
21st century in Venezuela. His ideological advisor
Heinz Dieterich, a German, was recently in Bolivia. Do
you intend to introduce socialism in Bolivia?
Morales: If socialism means that we live well, that
there is equality and justice, and that we have no
social and economic problems, then I welcome it.
SPIEGEL: You admire Fidel Castro as the "grandfather
of all Latin American revolutionaries." What have you
learned from him?
Morales: Solidarity, most of all. Fidel helps us a
great deal. He has donated seven eye clinics and 20
basic hospitals. Cuban doctors have already performed
30,000 free cataract operations for Bolivians. Five
thousand Bolivians from poor backgrounds are studying
medicine at no charge in Cuba.
SPIEGEL: But Bolivian doctors are protesting the
Cubans' presence. They say that they deprive them of
their livelihood.
Morales: The Bolivian state doesn't pay the Cuban
doctors any salaries, so they're not taking anything
away from the Bolivians.
SPIEGEL: Do you know how Castro is doing?
Morales: Yes, I spoke with him on the phone today. He
has been feeling better for the last two days. He told
me that he'll be well enough to attend the summit of
nonaligned nations in Havana in September.
SPIEGEL: And he'll give a speech then?
Morales: Certainly. It's an opportunity he won't miss.
SPIEGEL: The Americans are worried that Chavez is
gaining too much influence. Aren't you making yourself
dependent on Venezuela?
Morales: What unites us with Chavez is the concept of
the integration of South America. This is the old
dream of a great fatherland, a dream that existed even
before the Spanish conquest, and Simon Bolivar fought
for it later on. We want a South America modeled after
the European Union, with a currency like the euro, one
that's worth more than the dollar. Chavez's oil is
unimportant for Bolivia. We only get diesel under
favorable terms. But we are not dependent on
Venezuela. We complement each other. Venezuela shares
its wealth with other countries, but that doesn't make
us subordinate.
SPIEGEL: The Latin American left is fracturing into a
moderate, social democratic current, led by Lula and
Bachelet, and a radical, populist movement represented
by Castro, Chavez and yourself. Isn't Chavez dividing
the continent?
Morales: There are social democrats and others who are
marching more in the direction of equality, whether
you call them socialists or communists. But at least
Latin America no longer has racist or fascist
presidents like it did in the past. Capitalism has
only hurt Latin America.
SPIEGEL: You are the first Indian president in
Bolivian history. What role will indigenous culture
play in your government?
Morales: We must combine our social consciousness with
professional competency. In my administration,
intellectuals from the upper class can be cabinet
ministers or ambassadors, as can members of Indian
ethnic groups.
SPIEGEL: Do you believe that the Indian peoples have
developed a better social model than the white,
Western democracies?
Morales: There was no private property in the past.
Everything was communal property. In the Indian
community where I was born, everything belonged to the
community. This way of life is more equitable. We
Indians are Latin America's moral reserve. We act
according to a universal law that consists of three
basic principles: do not steal, do not lie and do not
be idle. This trilogy will also serve as the basis of
our new constitution.
SPIEGEL: Is it true that all government employees will
be required to learn the Indian languages Quechua,
Aymara und Guaraní in the future?
Morales: Public servants in the cities are required to
learn the language of their region. If we already
speak Spanish in Bolivia, we should also be fluent in
our own languages.
SPIEGEL: Are the whites treating the Indians better,
now that you're in power?
Morales: It's gotten a lot better. The middle class,
intellectuals and the self-employed are now proud of
their Indian roots. Unfortunately, some oligarchic
groups continue to treat us as being inferior.
SPIEGEL: Some critics claim that the Indians in
Bolivia are now racist toward the whites.
Morales: That's part of a dirty war the mass media are
waging against us. Wealthy, racist businessmen own
much of the media.
SPIEGEL: The Catholic Church has accused you of
wanting to reform religious instruction. Will there be
no freedom of religion in Bolivia?
Morales: I am Catholic. Freedom of religion isn't at
issue. But I am opposed to a monopoly when it comes to
faith.
SPIEGEL: Some large landowners have threatened violent
resistance to the planned land reforms. Whose land do
you intend to seize?
Morales: We will expropriate large land holdings that
are not being farmed. But we want democratic and
peaceful agrarian reform. The 1952 land reform led to
the creation of many tiny, unproductive parcels in the
Andean highlands.
SPIEGEL: Bolivia is divided into the rich provinces in
the east and the poor Andean highlands. There is a
strong movement for autonomy in the east. Is the
country at risk of breaking apart?
Morales: This is what a few fascist, oligarchic groups
want. But they lost the vote over the constitutional
convention.
SPIEGEL: Bolivia is an important narcotics producer.
Your predecessors had illegal coca plantations
destroyed. Do you intend to do the same thing?
Morales: From our standpoint, coca should be neither
destroyed nor completely legalized. Farming should be
controlled by the state and by the coca farmers'
unions. We have launched an international campaign to
legalize coca leaves, and we want the United Nations
to remove coca from its list of toxic substances.
Scientists proved long ago that coca leaves are not
toxic. We decided on a voluntary reduction in the
amount of acreage being farmed.
SPIEGEL: But the United States claims that the
majority of the coca harvest ends up in the cocaine
trade.
Morales: The Americans say all kinds of things. They
accuse us of not fulfilling the conditions of their
development aid. My pro-capitalist predecessor
administrations supported the massacre of coca
farmers. More than 800 campesinos died in the war on
drugs. The United States is using its war on drugs as
an excuse to expand its control over Latin America.
SPIEGEL: The American Drug Enforcement Agency, the
DEA, has agents stationed in Bolivia who advise the
military and the police in their efforts to combat the
drug trade. Will you be sending them home now?
Morales: They're still here, but they are no longer in
uniform or armed, as they were before.
SPIEGEL: How is your relationship with the United
States? Do you plan to travel to Washington?
Morales: A meeting with (US President) George W. Bush
is not planned. I do intend to travel to New York to
visit the UN General Assembly. When I was still a
member of parliament, the Americans didn't let me into
the country. But heads of state don't need a visa to
travel to the UN in New York.
SPIEGEL: You broke your nose while playing soccer a
few weeks ago. Are you playing less these days?
Morales: Does my nose still look crooked? Playing
sports has always been my greatest pleasure. I don't
smoke, I hardly drink alcohol and I rarely dance,
although I used to play the trumpet. Sports helped get
me into the presidential palace. My first position in
the union was that of sports secretary. I was head of
a soccer club in the countryside when I was 13.
SPIEGEL: Why don't you wear a tie?
Morales: I never wore a tie voluntarily, even though I
was forced to wear one for photos when I was young and
for official events at school. I used to wrap my tie
in a newspaper, and whenever the teacher checked I
would quickly put it on again. I'm not used to it.
Most Bolivians don't wear ties.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, thank you for speaking with
us.
The interview was conducted by Jens Glüsing and Hans
Hoyng and was translated from German by Christopher
Sultan.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
National Immigration Coalition
Companeras/os:
I offer this as a brief summary of the main points of the National
Immigrant Strategy Convention. While I realize that not all the
points are included, these are just my brief recollections of the
conference for the uses that any one desires.
SUMMARY NOTES REGARDING THE NATIONAL IMMIGRANT STRAGEGY CONVENTION
Prepared by: Nativo V. Lopez, National President, Mexican American
Political Association, and National Director, Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana
August 16, 2006
1. The convention was held at the Holiday Inn Hillside Hotel in
Chicago, Illinois on August 11-13th;
2. There were 761 delegates in attendance representing 400
organizations from 40 states;
3. The convention brought together immigrant base organizations
and coalitions, unions, and faith-based organizations who were clearly
responsible for the mega-marches organized throughout the U.S. from
February to May 1st this year;
4. The purpose of the convention was to unite these
organizations under a national umbrella network and hammer out a
strategy to proceed with the goals of this broad national immigrant's
rights movement;
5. The convention established the network under the name of
NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR IMMIGRANT'S RIGHTS / ALIANZA NACIONAL POR LOS
DERECHOS DEL INMIGRANTE, and created a Provisional National Council
comprised of 100 delegates to lead the work of the NAIR over the next
three months until a permanent governance structure is created;
6. The convention resolved to repudiate the two immigration
legislative proposals before the U.S. Congress H.R.4437 and S.2611
as unsatisfactory to the needs of the immigrant communities, and
demanded they be defeated this year;
7. The convention further resolved that the premise of its
existence is the demand for LEGALIZATION FOR ALL and an immediate
moratorium of immigration raids and deportations;
8. The delegates further reaffirmed support for the basic
points of unity that brought them together see
www.movimiento10demarzo.org for the complete list, and they further
adopted the political statement prepared before the convention
outlining the basic tenets of the national immigrant's rights
movement;
9. The convention emphasized the importance of uniting with the
labor movement, and unanimously resolved to endorse and actively
support various organizing campaigns of immigrant workers in various
industries Smithfield Company in Red Springs, North Carolina (the
largest hog slaughter plant in the world) being organized by the UFCW
United Food & Commercial Workers Union; the Port Driver's organizing
campaign by the Teamsters Union and the Change to Win Unions (Los
Angeles, Long Beach, and other cities); the Wal-Mart organizing
campaign by the UFCW and Change to Win; and other campaigns;
10. The first major actions resolved by the convention include
national marches with labor on the Labor Day Weekend Sept 4th to
create the ONE MOVEMENT concept between labor and immigrant's rights
movements;
11. The second major action will take place on September 30th the
National Day of LEGALIZATION FOR ALL and MORATORIUM OF RAIDS AND
DEPORTATIONS;
12. The convention further resolved to support ALL voter
registration and U.S. citizenship campaigns conducted by organizations
supportive of immigrants;
13. The convention also emphasized the importance of supporting all
immigrants in their efforts to create base organizations to develop
their leadership, capacity, resistance to right-wing attacks either in
the manifestation of "Minutemen-type" organizations and/or hate talk
radio and television, and municipal and state legislation which seek
to curb their civil liberties, constitutional, civil, and labor
rights;
14. The convention noted with special urgency the need for unity
between all the organizations, unions, faith-based entities,
coalitions, and other formations who support immigrants to one degree
or another, and the necessity to maintain a dialogue with all
irrespective of major or minor differences that may exist or occur
between the organizations within the movement;
15. Two important caucuses were formed at the convention to address
the specific needs and advocacy positions of both women and youth.
It was resolved to establish a network, internet list-serv, and
organizing, within the context of building the national immigrant
movement, corresponding to both constituencies. Gender equity of
leadership, within the formal governance structure and informal
representations, was emphasized. This was unanimously embraced by the
delegates.
16. The special case of Elvira Arellano, an undocumented immigrant
mother with a U.S. citizen minor son, resident of Chicago, IL, who
faces deportation, was acknowledged and acclaimed as a symbol of all
persons similarly affected by our unjust immigration laws. The
convention resolved to raise her case to national stature, fight to
prevent her deportation, and raise the demand for an immediate
moratorium against raids and deportations;
17. The delegates resolved to return to their respective cities and
states and begin working to broaden the NATIONAL ALLIANCE by including
base organizations and coalitions who were not able to attend the
convention, and put into practice the resolutions adopted; this will
result in developing state affiliates with the Alliance and eventually
establishing a permanent national and state governance structure which
is representative (of the immigrant communities themselves),
democratic, and transparent.
_____________________
I offer this as a brief summary of the main points of the National
Immigrant Strategy Convention. While I realize that not all the
points are included, these are just my brief recollections of the
conference for the uses that any one desires.
SUMMARY NOTES REGARDING THE NATIONAL IMMIGRANT STRAGEGY CONVENTION
Prepared by: Nativo V. Lopez, National President, Mexican American
Political Association, and National Director, Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana
August 16, 2006
1. The convention was held at the Holiday Inn Hillside Hotel in
Chicago, Illinois on August 11-13th;
2. There were 761 delegates in attendance representing 400
organizations from 40 states;
3. The convention brought together immigrant base organizations
and coalitions, unions, and faith-based organizations who were clearly
responsible for the mega-marches organized throughout the U.S. from
February to May 1st this year;
4. The purpose of the convention was to unite these
organizations under a national umbrella network and hammer out a
strategy to proceed with the goals of this broad national immigrant's
rights movement;
5. The convention established the network under the name of
NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR IMMIGRANT'S RIGHTS / ALIANZA NACIONAL POR LOS
DERECHOS DEL INMIGRANTE, and created a Provisional National Council
comprised of 100 delegates to lead the work of the NAIR over the next
three months until a permanent governance structure is created;
6. The convention resolved to repudiate the two immigration
legislative proposals before the U.S. Congress H.R.4437 and S.2611
as unsatisfactory to the needs of the immigrant communities, and
demanded they be defeated this year;
7. The convention further resolved that the premise of its
existence is the demand for LEGALIZATION FOR ALL and an immediate
moratorium of immigration raids and deportations;
8. The delegates further reaffirmed support for the basic
points of unity that brought them together see
www.movimiento10demarzo.org for the complete list, and they further
adopted the political statement prepared before the convention
outlining the basic tenets of the national immigrant's rights
movement;
9. The convention emphasized the importance of uniting with the
labor movement, and unanimously resolved to endorse and actively
support various organizing campaigns of immigrant workers in various
industries Smithfield Company in Red Springs, North Carolina (the
largest hog slaughter plant in the world) being organized by the UFCW
United Food & Commercial Workers Union; the Port Driver's organizing
campaign by the Teamsters Union and the Change to Win Unions (Los
Angeles, Long Beach, and other cities); the Wal-Mart organizing
campaign by the UFCW and Change to Win; and other campaigns;
10. The first major actions resolved by the convention include
national marches with labor on the Labor Day Weekend Sept 4th to
create the ONE MOVEMENT concept between labor and immigrant's rights
movements;
11. The second major action will take place on September 30th the
National Day of LEGALIZATION FOR ALL and MORATORIUM OF RAIDS AND
DEPORTATIONS;
12. The convention further resolved to support ALL voter
registration and U.S. citizenship campaigns conducted by organizations
supportive of immigrants;
13. The convention also emphasized the importance of supporting all
immigrants in their efforts to create base organizations to develop
their leadership, capacity, resistance to right-wing attacks either in
the manifestation of "Minutemen-type" organizations and/or hate talk
radio and television, and municipal and state legislation which seek
to curb their civil liberties, constitutional, civil, and labor
rights;
14. The convention noted with special urgency the need for unity
between all the organizations, unions, faith-based entities,
coalitions, and other formations who support immigrants to one degree
or another, and the necessity to maintain a dialogue with all
irrespective of major or minor differences that may exist or occur
between the organizations within the movement;
15. Two important caucuses were formed at the convention to address
the specific needs and advocacy positions of both women and youth.
It was resolved to establish a network, internet list-serv, and
organizing, within the context of building the national immigrant
movement, corresponding to both constituencies. Gender equity of
leadership, within the formal governance structure and informal
representations, was emphasized. This was unanimously embraced by the
delegates.
16. The special case of Elvira Arellano, an undocumented immigrant
mother with a U.S. citizen minor son, resident of Chicago, IL, who
faces deportation, was acknowledged and acclaimed as a symbol of all
persons similarly affected by our unjust immigration laws. The
convention resolved to raise her case to national stature, fight to
prevent her deportation, and raise the demand for an immediate
moratorium against raids and deportations;
17. The delegates resolved to return to their respective cities and
states and begin working to broaden the NATIONAL ALLIANCE by including
base organizations and coalitions who were not able to attend the
convention, and put into practice the resolutions adopted; this will
result in developing state affiliates with the Alliance and eventually
establishing a permanent national and state governance structure which
is representative (of the immigrant communities themselves),
democratic, and transparent.
_____________________
Sunday, August 27, 2006
The Left Grows in Mexico
Mexico Approaches the Combustion Point
By JOHN ROSS
Mexico City.
http://counterpunch.org/ross08232006.html
August 23, 2006
"God doesn't belong to the PAN!"
"AMLO deserves a miracle"
"No Pasaran!"
The Congress of the country is ringed by two-meter tall
grilled metal barriers soldered together apparently to
thwart a suicide car bomb attack. Behind this metal
wall, 3000 vizored, kevlar-wearing robocops -- the
Federal Preventative Police (PFP, a police force drawn
from the army) -- and members of the elite Estado Mayor
or Presidential military command, form a second line of
defense. Armed with tear gas launchers, water cannons,
and reportedly light tanks, this Praetorian Guard has
been assigned to protect law and order and the
institutions of the republic against left-wing mobs
that threaten to storm the Legislative Palace -- or so
the President informs his fellow citizens in repeated
messages transmitted on national television.
No, the President's name is not Pinochet and this
military tableau is not being mounted in the usual
banana republic or some African satrap. This is Mexico,
a paragon of democracy (dixit George Bush), Washington'
third trading partner, and the eighth leading petroleum
producer on the planet, seven weeks after the fraud-
marred July 2 presidential election of which, at this
writing, no winner has been officially declared. One of
the elite military units assigned to seal off congress
is indeed titled the July 2 brigade.
MEXICO ON A KNIFEBLADE headlines the British Guardian,
but the typically short-term-memory-loss U.S. print
media seems to have forgotten about the imbroglio just
south of its borders. Nonetheless, the phone rings and
it's New York telling me they just got a call from
their man on the border and Homeland Security is
beefing up its forces around Laredo in anticipation of
upheaval further south. The phone rings again and it's
California telling me they just heard on Air America
that U.S. Navy patrols were being dispatched to
safeguard Mexican oil platforms in the Gulf. The left-
wing daily here, La Jornada, runs a citizen-snapped
photo of army convoys arriving carrying soldiers
disguised as farmers and young toughs. Rumors race
through the seven mile-long encampment installed by
supporters of leftist presidential challenger Andres
Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) three weeks ago who have
tied up big city traffic and enraged the motorist class
here, that PFP robocops will attack before dawn. The
campers stay up all night huddled around bum fires
prepared to defend their tent cities.
The moment reminds many Mexicans of the tense weeks in
September and October 1968 when 12 days before the
Olympic Games were to be inaugurated here, President
Gustavo Diaz Ordaz ordered the military to massacre
striking students in a downtown plaza not far from
where AMLO's people are now camped out. 300 were killed
in the Plaza of Three Cultures, their bodies
incinerated at Military Camp #1 in western Mexico City.
The Tlatelolco massacre was a watershed in social
conflict here and the similarities are sinister. In
fact, Lopez Obrador has taken to comparing outgoing
President Vicente Fox with Diaz Ordaz.
Fox will go to congress September 1 to deliver his
final State of the Union address. The new legislature
will be convened the same day. The country may or may
not have a new president by that day. In
anticipation of this show-down, on August 14, newly-
elected senators and deputies from the three parties
that comprise AMLO's Coalition for the Good of All
attempted to encamp on the sidewalk in front of the
legislative palace only to be rousted and clobbered
bloody by the President's robocops.
With 160 representatives, the Coalition forms just a
quarter of the 628 members of the new congress but they
will be a loud minority during Fox's "Informe". Since
the 1988 "presidenciales" were stolen from Cuauhtemoc
Cardenas, founder of AMLO's Party of the Democratic
Revolution, PRD legislators have routinely interrupted
the president during this authoritarian ritual in
orchestrated outbursts that have sometimes degenerated
into partisan fisticuffs.
The first to challenge the Imperial Presidency was
Porfirio Munoz Ledo, a hoary political warhorse, who in
1988 thrust a finger at President Miguel De la Madrid,
accusing him of overseeing the theft of the election
from Cardenas. Munoz Ledo's J'Accuse stunned the
political class. He was slugged and pummeled by members
of De la Madrid's long-ruling PRI when he tried to
escape the chamber. Munoz Ledo now stands at AMLO's
side.
But perhaps the most comical moment in the annals of
acting out during the Informe, came in 1996 when a
brash PRI deputy donned a Babe the Valiant Pig mask and
positioned himself directly under the podium from which
President Ernesto Zedillo was addressing the state of
the nation, and wiggled insouciant signs with slogans
that said things like 'EAT THE RICH!" Like Munoz Ledo,
Marco Rascon was physically attacked, his mask ripped
off like he was a losing wrestler by a corrupt railroad
union official who in turn was hammer locked by a
pseudo-leftist senator, Irma "La Tigresa" Serrano, a
one-time ranchero singer and in fact, the former very
close friend of Gustavo Diaz Ordaz.
This September 1, if martial law is not declared and
the new congress dissolved before it is even installed,
the PRD delegation, which will no doubt be strip-
searched by the Estado Mayor for incriminating banners,
is sworn to create a monumental ruckus, shredding the
tarnished decorum of this once-solemn event forever to
protest Fox's endorsement of electoral larceny. Some
solons say they may go naked.
But no matter what kind of uproar develops, one can be
secure that it will not be shown on national television
as the cameras of Mexico's two-headed television
monstrosity â_" Televisa and TV Azteca â_" will stay
trained on the President as he tries to mouth the
stereotypical clichÃ(c)s that is always the stuff and
fluff of this otherwise stultifying sÃ(c)ance. The images
of the chaos on the floor of congress will not be
passed along to the Great Unwashed.
There is a reptilian feel to Mexico seven weeks after a
discredited Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) cemented
Lopez Obrador into a second place coffin by awarding
the presidency to right-winger Felipe Calderon by a
mere 243,000 votes out of a total 42,000,000 cast. Both
Calderon and IFE czar Luis Carlos Ugalde (Calderon was
best man at Ugalde's wedding) make these little beady
reptile eyes as they slither across national screens.
Those screens have been the scenes of some of the
slimiest and most sordid political intrigue of late.
One of the lizard kings who is fleetingly featured on
Televisa primetime is an imprisoned Argentinean
construction tycoon, Carlos Ahumada, who in 2004
conspired with Fox, Calderon's PAN, and Televisa to
frame AMLO on corruption charges and take him out of
the presidential election."El Peje" (for a gar-like
fish from the swamps of Lopez Obrador's native Tabasco)
was then leading the pack by 18 points.
Charged by Lopez Obrador, then the mayor of this
megalopolis, with defrauding Mexico City out of
millions, Ahumada had taken his revenge by filming PRD
honchos when they came to his office to pick up boodles
of political cash. Although the filthy lucre was
perfectly legal under Mexico's milquetoast campaign
financing laws, the pick-ups looked awful on national
television. AMLO's former personal secretary was caught
stuffing wads of low denomination bills into his suit
coat pockets as if he were on Saturday Night Live.
Ahumada subsequently turned the tapes over to the
leprous, cigar-chomping leader of Fox's PAN party in
the Senate, Diego Fernandez de Cevallos ("El Jefe
Diego") who in turn had them delivered to a green-
haired clown, Brozo, who was then reading the morning
news on Televisa. Then the Argentine blackmailer fled
to Cuba in a private plane. Televisa would air the
incriminating videos day and night for months.
Apprehended in Veradero after his lover Robles was
shadowed to that socialist beachfront, Ahumada spilled
the beans to Cuban authorities: Interior Secretary
Santiago Creel, who was then AMLO's lead rival for the
presidency, had cooked up the plot with the connivance
of reviled former president Carlos Salinas, Lopez
Obrador's most venomous foe, the then attorney general,
and Fox himself, to remove AMLO from the race.
The Mexican government did not ask for extradition and
Ahumada's deportation from Cuba was not seen as a
friendly gesture. Within a month, diplomatic relations
between Mexico and Cuba were broken off and ambassadors
summoned home. The construction tycoon has been
imprisoned in Mexico City ever since he was booted out
of Cuba and was last heard from when he had his rogue
cop chauffer shoot up the family SUV, a charade both
Fox and Televisa tried to pin on AMLO. Ahumada had
suggested he was about to release two more
incriminating videos. These dubious events took place
on June 6, the day of a crucial presidential debate
between AMLO and Calderon.
Then last week, Ahumada abruptly resurfaced, or at
least his videotaped confession to Cuban authorities
did. Filmed through prison bars, he lays out the plot
step by step. Yes, he affirms, the deal was fixed up to
cut AMLO's legs out from under him and advance the
fortunes of the right-wing candidate who turned out to
be Felipe Calderon and not the bumbling Creel. The
conspiracy backfired badly as his supporters rallied
around him and Lopez Obrador's ratings soared.
The origins of the confession tape, leaked to top-rung
reporter Carmen Aristegui, was obscure. Had Fidel
dispatched it from his sick bed to bolster Lopez
Obrador's claims of victory as the PAN and the snake-
eyed Televisa evening anchor Joaquin Lopez Dorriga
hissed? The air grew serpentine with theories. There
was even one school that speculated Calderon himself
had been the source in a scheme to distance himself
from Fox (there had always been bad feelings between
them) and Creel, now the leader of the PAN faction in
congress.
AMLO advanced a variant of this explanation: the
specter of Ahumada had been resuscitated to divert
attention from the evidence of generalized fraud the
Coalition had submitted to the TRIFE and the panel's
impending verdict that Calderon had won the election.
Perhaps the most nagging question in this snakepit of
uncertainty is what happened during the partial recount
of less than 10per cent of the 130,000 ballot boxes
ordered by the TRIFE to test the legitimacy of the
IFE's results. Although the recount concluded on August
13, the judges have released no numbers and are not
obligated to do so. Their only responsibility is to
certify the validity of the election.
Although AMLO's reps in the counting rooms came up with
gobs of evidence -- violated ballot boxes, stolen or
stuffed ballots, altered tally sheets and other bizarre
anomalies -- only the left-wing daily La Jornada saw
fit to mention them. The silence of the Mexican media
and their accomplices in the international press in
respect to the Great Fraud is deafening, although they
manage to fill their rags with ample attacks on Lopez
Obrador for tying up Mexico City traffic.
According to AMLO's people, 119,000 ballots in the
sample recount cannot be substantiated in about 3500
casillas, 58,000 more votes were cast than the number
of voters on the voting list. In nearly 4000 other
casillas, 61,000 ballots allocated to election
officials cannot be accounted for. The annulment of the
casillas in which these alterations occurred would put
Lopez Obrador in striking distance of Calderon and in a
better world, would obligate the TRIFE to order a total
recount.
But given the cheesy state of the Mexican judiciary
this is not apt to happen. One of the judges who will
decide the fate of democracy in Mexico is a former
client of El Jefe Diego for whom the PANista senator
won millions from the Mexico City government in a
crooked land deal.
Meanwhile, thousands continue to camp out in a hard
rain for a third week on the streets of Mexico City
awaiting the court's decision. They have taken to
erecting shrines and altars and are praying for divine
intervention. Hundreds pilgrimage out to the shrine of
the Virgin of Guadalupe, some crawling on their knees,
to ask the Brown Madonna to work her miracle. "God
doesn't belong to the PAN!" they chant as they trudge
up the great avenue that leads to the Basilica. "AMLO
deserves a miracle" Esther Ortiz, a 70 year-old great
grandmother comments to a reporter as she kneels to
pray before the gilded altar.
At the Metropolitan Cathedral on one flank of the
Zocalo, a young worshipper interrupts Cardinal Norberto
Rivera and is quickly hustled off the premises by his
Eminence's bouncers. The following Sunday, the
Cathedral's great doors are under heavy surveillance,
and churchgoers screened for telltale signs of devotion
to Lopez Obrador. Hundreds of AMLO's supporters mill
about in front of the ancient temple shouting "voto por
voto" and that Cardinal Rivera is a pederast.
AMLO as demi-god is one motif of this religious pageant
being played out at what was once the heart of the
Aztec theocracy, the island of Tenochtitlan. The ruins
of the twin temples of the fierce Aztec war god
Huitzilopochtli and Tlahuac, the god of the rain, are
adjacent to the National Palace against which AMLO's
stage is set. Lopez Obrador sleeps each night in a tent
close by.
Many hearts were ripped out smoking on these old stones
and fed to such hungry gods before the Crusaders showed
up bearing the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
AMLO is accused by right-wing "intellectuals" (Enrique
Krauze and the gringo apologist George Grayson) of
entertaining a Messiah complex. Indeed, he is up there
every day on the big screen, his craggy features, salt
and pepper hair, raspy voice and defiantly jutted jaw
bearing more of a passable resemblance to a younger
George C. Scott rather than The Crucified One. AMLO's
devotees come every evening at seven, shoehorned
between the big tents that fill the Zocalo, rain or
shine. Last Monday, I stood with a few thousand
diehards in a biblical downpour, thunder and lightening
shattering the heavens above. "Llueve y llueve y el
pueblo no se mueve" they chanted joyously, "it rains
and rains and the people do not move."
The evolution of these incantations is fascinating. At
first, the standard slogan of "Voto Por Voto, Casilla
por Casilla!" was automatically invoked whenever Lopez
Obrador stepped to the microphone. "You are not alone!"
and "Presidente!" had their moment. "Fraude!" is still
popular but in these last days, "No Pasaran!" -- they
shall not pass, the cry of the defenders of Madrid as
Franco's fascist hordes banged on the doors of Madrid,
1936 -- has flourished.
In this context, "No Pasaran!" means "we will not let
Felipe Calderon pass to the presidency." AMLO, who
holds out little hope that the TRIFE will decide in his
favor, devotes more time now to organizing the
resistance to the imposition of Calderon upon the Aztec
nation. Article 39 of the Mexican constitution, he
reminds partisans, grants the people the right to
change their government if that government does not
represent them. To this end, he is summoning a million
delegates up to the Zocalo for a National Democratic
Convention on Mexican Independence Day September 16, a
date usually reserved for a major military parade.
Aside from the logistical impossibility of putting a
million citizens in this Tiennemens-sized plaza, how
this gargantuan political extravaganza is going to be
financed is cloudy. Right now, it seems like small
children donating their piggy banks is the main mode of
fund-raising. Because AMLO's people distrust the banks,
all of which financed Calderon's vicious TV ad
campaign, a giant piggy bank has been raised in the
Zocalo to receive the contributions of the faithful.
Dreaming is also a fundraiser. 10,000 raised their
voices in song this past Sunday as part of a huge
chorus assembled under the dome of the Monument to the
Revolution to perform a cantata based on the words of
Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi. This too is a
form of civil resistance, Lopez Obrador commended his
followers.
The first National Democratic Convention took place
behind rebel lines in the state of Aguascalientes in
1914 at the apogee of the Mexican Revolution when the
forces of Francisco Villa and his Army of the North
first joined forces with Zapata's Liberating Army of
the Southern Revolution. The second National Democratic
Revolution took place 80 years later in 1994, in a
clearing in the Lacandon Jungle of Chiapas when the
Zapatista Army of National Liberation wedded itself to
the civil society in an uprising that rocked Mexico all
throughout the '90s. Eclipsed by events, the EZLN and
its quixotic spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos have
disappeared from the political map in the wake of the
fraudulent election.
What this third National Democratic Convention is all
about is now being debated in PRD ruling circles and
down at the grassroots. Minimally, a plan of organized
resistance that will dog Felipe Calderon for the next
six years, severely hampering his ability to rule will
evolve from this mammoth conclave. The declaration of a
government in resistance headed by Andres Manuel Lopez
Obrador is one consideration. The National Democratic
Convention could also result in the creation of a new
party to replace a worn-out PRD now thoroughly
infiltrated by cast-offs from the PRI.
The Party of the Democratic Revolution has always
functioned best as an opposition party. With notable
exceptions (AMLO was one), when the PRD becomes
government, it collapses into corruption, internecine
bickering, and behaves just as arrogantly as the PAN
and the PRI. No Pasaran?
Seven weeks after the July 2 electoral debacle, Mexico
finds itself at a dangerously combustible conjunction
("coyuntura") in which the tiny white elite here is
about to impose its will upon a largely brown and
impoverished populous to whom the political parties and
process grow more irrelevant each day. "No Pasaran!"
the people cry out but to whom and what they are
alluding to remains to be defined.
--------------------------------
John Ross's ZAPATISTAS! Making Another World Possible:
Chronicles of Resistance 2000-2006 will be published by
Nation Books this October. Ross will travel the Left
Coast this fall with both ZAPATISTAS! and a new
chapbook of poetry BOMBA! and is still looking for
possible venues. Send suggestions to johnross@igc.org
By JOHN ROSS
Mexico City.
http://counterpunch.org/ross08232006.html
August 23, 2006
"God doesn't belong to the PAN!"
"AMLO deserves a miracle"
"No Pasaran!"
The Congress of the country is ringed by two-meter tall
grilled metal barriers soldered together apparently to
thwart a suicide car bomb attack. Behind this metal
wall, 3000 vizored, kevlar-wearing robocops -- the
Federal Preventative Police (PFP, a police force drawn
from the army) -- and members of the elite Estado Mayor
or Presidential military command, form a second line of
defense. Armed with tear gas launchers, water cannons,
and reportedly light tanks, this Praetorian Guard has
been assigned to protect law and order and the
institutions of the republic against left-wing mobs
that threaten to storm the Legislative Palace -- or so
the President informs his fellow citizens in repeated
messages transmitted on national television.
No, the President's name is not Pinochet and this
military tableau is not being mounted in the usual
banana republic or some African satrap. This is Mexico,
a paragon of democracy (dixit George Bush), Washington'
third trading partner, and the eighth leading petroleum
producer on the planet, seven weeks after the fraud-
marred July 2 presidential election of which, at this
writing, no winner has been officially declared. One of
the elite military units assigned to seal off congress
is indeed titled the July 2 brigade.
MEXICO ON A KNIFEBLADE headlines the British Guardian,
but the typically short-term-memory-loss U.S. print
media seems to have forgotten about the imbroglio just
south of its borders. Nonetheless, the phone rings and
it's New York telling me they just got a call from
their man on the border and Homeland Security is
beefing up its forces around Laredo in anticipation of
upheaval further south. The phone rings again and it's
California telling me they just heard on Air America
that U.S. Navy patrols were being dispatched to
safeguard Mexican oil platforms in the Gulf. The left-
wing daily here, La Jornada, runs a citizen-snapped
photo of army convoys arriving carrying soldiers
disguised as farmers and young toughs. Rumors race
through the seven mile-long encampment installed by
supporters of leftist presidential challenger Andres
Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) three weeks ago who have
tied up big city traffic and enraged the motorist class
here, that PFP robocops will attack before dawn. The
campers stay up all night huddled around bum fires
prepared to defend their tent cities.
The moment reminds many Mexicans of the tense weeks in
September and October 1968 when 12 days before the
Olympic Games were to be inaugurated here, President
Gustavo Diaz Ordaz ordered the military to massacre
striking students in a downtown plaza not far from
where AMLO's people are now camped out. 300 were killed
in the Plaza of Three Cultures, their bodies
incinerated at Military Camp #1 in western Mexico City.
The Tlatelolco massacre was a watershed in social
conflict here and the similarities are sinister. In
fact, Lopez Obrador has taken to comparing outgoing
President Vicente Fox with Diaz Ordaz.
Fox will go to congress September 1 to deliver his
final State of the Union address. The new legislature
will be convened the same day. The country may or may
not have a new president by that day. In
anticipation of this show-down, on August 14, newly-
elected senators and deputies from the three parties
that comprise AMLO's Coalition for the Good of All
attempted to encamp on the sidewalk in front of the
legislative palace only to be rousted and clobbered
bloody by the President's robocops.
With 160 representatives, the Coalition forms just a
quarter of the 628 members of the new congress but they
will be a loud minority during Fox's "Informe". Since
the 1988 "presidenciales" were stolen from Cuauhtemoc
Cardenas, founder of AMLO's Party of the Democratic
Revolution, PRD legislators have routinely interrupted
the president during this authoritarian ritual in
orchestrated outbursts that have sometimes degenerated
into partisan fisticuffs.
The first to challenge the Imperial Presidency was
Porfirio Munoz Ledo, a hoary political warhorse, who in
1988 thrust a finger at President Miguel De la Madrid,
accusing him of overseeing the theft of the election
from Cardenas. Munoz Ledo's J'Accuse stunned the
political class. He was slugged and pummeled by members
of De la Madrid's long-ruling PRI when he tried to
escape the chamber. Munoz Ledo now stands at AMLO's
side.
But perhaps the most comical moment in the annals of
acting out during the Informe, came in 1996 when a
brash PRI deputy donned a Babe the Valiant Pig mask and
positioned himself directly under the podium from which
President Ernesto Zedillo was addressing the state of
the nation, and wiggled insouciant signs with slogans
that said things like 'EAT THE RICH!" Like Munoz Ledo,
Marco Rascon was physically attacked, his mask ripped
off like he was a losing wrestler by a corrupt railroad
union official who in turn was hammer locked by a
pseudo-leftist senator, Irma "La Tigresa" Serrano, a
one-time ranchero singer and in fact, the former very
close friend of Gustavo Diaz Ordaz.
This September 1, if martial law is not declared and
the new congress dissolved before it is even installed,
the PRD delegation, which will no doubt be strip-
searched by the Estado Mayor for incriminating banners,
is sworn to create a monumental ruckus, shredding the
tarnished decorum of this once-solemn event forever to
protest Fox's endorsement of electoral larceny. Some
solons say they may go naked.
But no matter what kind of uproar develops, one can be
secure that it will not be shown on national television
as the cameras of Mexico's two-headed television
monstrosity â_" Televisa and TV Azteca â_" will stay
trained on the President as he tries to mouth the
stereotypical clichÃ(c)s that is always the stuff and
fluff of this otherwise stultifying sÃ(c)ance. The images
of the chaos on the floor of congress will not be
passed along to the Great Unwashed.
There is a reptilian feel to Mexico seven weeks after a
discredited Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) cemented
Lopez Obrador into a second place coffin by awarding
the presidency to right-winger Felipe Calderon by a
mere 243,000 votes out of a total 42,000,000 cast. Both
Calderon and IFE czar Luis Carlos Ugalde (Calderon was
best man at Ugalde's wedding) make these little beady
reptile eyes as they slither across national screens.
Those screens have been the scenes of some of the
slimiest and most sordid political intrigue of late.
One of the lizard kings who is fleetingly featured on
Televisa primetime is an imprisoned Argentinean
construction tycoon, Carlos Ahumada, who in 2004
conspired with Fox, Calderon's PAN, and Televisa to
frame AMLO on corruption charges and take him out of
the presidential election."El Peje" (for a gar-like
fish from the swamps of Lopez Obrador's native Tabasco)
was then leading the pack by 18 points.
Charged by Lopez Obrador, then the mayor of this
megalopolis, with defrauding Mexico City out of
millions, Ahumada had taken his revenge by filming PRD
honchos when they came to his office to pick up boodles
of political cash. Although the filthy lucre was
perfectly legal under Mexico's milquetoast campaign
financing laws, the pick-ups looked awful on national
television. AMLO's former personal secretary was caught
stuffing wads of low denomination bills into his suit
coat pockets as if he were on Saturday Night Live.
Ahumada subsequently turned the tapes over to the
leprous, cigar-chomping leader of Fox's PAN party in
the Senate, Diego Fernandez de Cevallos ("El Jefe
Diego") who in turn had them delivered to a green-
haired clown, Brozo, who was then reading the morning
news on Televisa. Then the Argentine blackmailer fled
to Cuba in a private plane. Televisa would air the
incriminating videos day and night for months.
Apprehended in Veradero after his lover Robles was
shadowed to that socialist beachfront, Ahumada spilled
the beans to Cuban authorities: Interior Secretary
Santiago Creel, who was then AMLO's lead rival for the
presidency, had cooked up the plot with the connivance
of reviled former president Carlos Salinas, Lopez
Obrador's most venomous foe, the then attorney general,
and Fox himself, to remove AMLO from the race.
The Mexican government did not ask for extradition and
Ahumada's deportation from Cuba was not seen as a
friendly gesture. Within a month, diplomatic relations
between Mexico and Cuba were broken off and ambassadors
summoned home. The construction tycoon has been
imprisoned in Mexico City ever since he was booted out
of Cuba and was last heard from when he had his rogue
cop chauffer shoot up the family SUV, a charade both
Fox and Televisa tried to pin on AMLO. Ahumada had
suggested he was about to release two more
incriminating videos. These dubious events took place
on June 6, the day of a crucial presidential debate
between AMLO and Calderon.
Then last week, Ahumada abruptly resurfaced, or at
least his videotaped confession to Cuban authorities
did. Filmed through prison bars, he lays out the plot
step by step. Yes, he affirms, the deal was fixed up to
cut AMLO's legs out from under him and advance the
fortunes of the right-wing candidate who turned out to
be Felipe Calderon and not the bumbling Creel. The
conspiracy backfired badly as his supporters rallied
around him and Lopez Obrador's ratings soared.
The origins of the confession tape, leaked to top-rung
reporter Carmen Aristegui, was obscure. Had Fidel
dispatched it from his sick bed to bolster Lopez
Obrador's claims of victory as the PAN and the snake-
eyed Televisa evening anchor Joaquin Lopez Dorriga
hissed? The air grew serpentine with theories. There
was even one school that speculated Calderon himself
had been the source in a scheme to distance himself
from Fox (there had always been bad feelings between
them) and Creel, now the leader of the PAN faction in
congress.
AMLO advanced a variant of this explanation: the
specter of Ahumada had been resuscitated to divert
attention from the evidence of generalized fraud the
Coalition had submitted to the TRIFE and the panel's
impending verdict that Calderon had won the election.
Perhaps the most nagging question in this snakepit of
uncertainty is what happened during the partial recount
of less than 10per cent of the 130,000 ballot boxes
ordered by the TRIFE to test the legitimacy of the
IFE's results. Although the recount concluded on August
13, the judges have released no numbers and are not
obligated to do so. Their only responsibility is to
certify the validity of the election.
Although AMLO's reps in the counting rooms came up with
gobs of evidence -- violated ballot boxes, stolen or
stuffed ballots, altered tally sheets and other bizarre
anomalies -- only the left-wing daily La Jornada saw
fit to mention them. The silence of the Mexican media
and their accomplices in the international press in
respect to the Great Fraud is deafening, although they
manage to fill their rags with ample attacks on Lopez
Obrador for tying up Mexico City traffic.
According to AMLO's people, 119,000 ballots in the
sample recount cannot be substantiated in about 3500
casillas, 58,000 more votes were cast than the number
of voters on the voting list. In nearly 4000 other
casillas, 61,000 ballots allocated to election
officials cannot be accounted for. The annulment of the
casillas in which these alterations occurred would put
Lopez Obrador in striking distance of Calderon and in a
better world, would obligate the TRIFE to order a total
recount.
But given the cheesy state of the Mexican judiciary
this is not apt to happen. One of the judges who will
decide the fate of democracy in Mexico is a former
client of El Jefe Diego for whom the PANista senator
won millions from the Mexico City government in a
crooked land deal.
Meanwhile, thousands continue to camp out in a hard
rain for a third week on the streets of Mexico City
awaiting the court's decision. They have taken to
erecting shrines and altars and are praying for divine
intervention. Hundreds pilgrimage out to the shrine of
the Virgin of Guadalupe, some crawling on their knees,
to ask the Brown Madonna to work her miracle. "God
doesn't belong to the PAN!" they chant as they trudge
up the great avenue that leads to the Basilica. "AMLO
deserves a miracle" Esther Ortiz, a 70 year-old great
grandmother comments to a reporter as she kneels to
pray before the gilded altar.
At the Metropolitan Cathedral on one flank of the
Zocalo, a young worshipper interrupts Cardinal Norberto
Rivera and is quickly hustled off the premises by his
Eminence's bouncers. The following Sunday, the
Cathedral's great doors are under heavy surveillance,
and churchgoers screened for telltale signs of devotion
to Lopez Obrador. Hundreds of AMLO's supporters mill
about in front of the ancient temple shouting "voto por
voto" and that Cardinal Rivera is a pederast.
AMLO as demi-god is one motif of this religious pageant
being played out at what was once the heart of the
Aztec theocracy, the island of Tenochtitlan. The ruins
of the twin temples of the fierce Aztec war god
Huitzilopochtli and Tlahuac, the god of the rain, are
adjacent to the National Palace against which AMLO's
stage is set. Lopez Obrador sleeps each night in a tent
close by.
Many hearts were ripped out smoking on these old stones
and fed to such hungry gods before the Crusaders showed
up bearing the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
AMLO is accused by right-wing "intellectuals" (Enrique
Krauze and the gringo apologist George Grayson) of
entertaining a Messiah complex. Indeed, he is up there
every day on the big screen, his craggy features, salt
and pepper hair, raspy voice and defiantly jutted jaw
bearing more of a passable resemblance to a younger
George C. Scott rather than The Crucified One. AMLO's
devotees come every evening at seven, shoehorned
between the big tents that fill the Zocalo, rain or
shine. Last Monday, I stood with a few thousand
diehards in a biblical downpour, thunder and lightening
shattering the heavens above. "Llueve y llueve y el
pueblo no se mueve" they chanted joyously, "it rains
and rains and the people do not move."
The evolution of these incantations is fascinating. At
first, the standard slogan of "Voto Por Voto, Casilla
por Casilla!" was automatically invoked whenever Lopez
Obrador stepped to the microphone. "You are not alone!"
and "Presidente!" had their moment. "Fraude!" is still
popular but in these last days, "No Pasaran!" -- they
shall not pass, the cry of the defenders of Madrid as
Franco's fascist hordes banged on the doors of Madrid,
1936 -- has flourished.
In this context, "No Pasaran!" means "we will not let
Felipe Calderon pass to the presidency." AMLO, who
holds out little hope that the TRIFE will decide in his
favor, devotes more time now to organizing the
resistance to the imposition of Calderon upon the Aztec
nation. Article 39 of the Mexican constitution, he
reminds partisans, grants the people the right to
change their government if that government does not
represent them. To this end, he is summoning a million
delegates up to the Zocalo for a National Democratic
Convention on Mexican Independence Day September 16, a
date usually reserved for a major military parade.
Aside from the logistical impossibility of putting a
million citizens in this Tiennemens-sized plaza, how
this gargantuan political extravaganza is going to be
financed is cloudy. Right now, it seems like small
children donating their piggy banks is the main mode of
fund-raising. Because AMLO's people distrust the banks,
all of which financed Calderon's vicious TV ad
campaign, a giant piggy bank has been raised in the
Zocalo to receive the contributions of the faithful.
Dreaming is also a fundraiser. 10,000 raised their
voices in song this past Sunday as part of a huge
chorus assembled under the dome of the Monument to the
Revolution to perform a cantata based on the words of
Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi. This too is a
form of civil resistance, Lopez Obrador commended his
followers.
The first National Democratic Convention took place
behind rebel lines in the state of Aguascalientes in
1914 at the apogee of the Mexican Revolution when the
forces of Francisco Villa and his Army of the North
first joined forces with Zapata's Liberating Army of
the Southern Revolution. The second National Democratic
Revolution took place 80 years later in 1994, in a
clearing in the Lacandon Jungle of Chiapas when the
Zapatista Army of National Liberation wedded itself to
the civil society in an uprising that rocked Mexico all
throughout the '90s. Eclipsed by events, the EZLN and
its quixotic spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos have
disappeared from the political map in the wake of the
fraudulent election.
What this third National Democratic Convention is all
about is now being debated in PRD ruling circles and
down at the grassroots. Minimally, a plan of organized
resistance that will dog Felipe Calderon for the next
six years, severely hampering his ability to rule will
evolve from this mammoth conclave. The declaration of a
government in resistance headed by Andres Manuel Lopez
Obrador is one consideration. The National Democratic
Convention could also result in the creation of a new
party to replace a worn-out PRD now thoroughly
infiltrated by cast-offs from the PRI.
The Party of the Democratic Revolution has always
functioned best as an opposition party. With notable
exceptions (AMLO was one), when the PRD becomes
government, it collapses into corruption, internecine
bickering, and behaves just as arrogantly as the PAN
and the PRI. No Pasaran?
Seven weeks after the July 2 electoral debacle, Mexico
finds itself at a dangerously combustible conjunction
("coyuntura") in which the tiny white elite here is
about to impose its will upon a largely brown and
impoverished populous to whom the political parties and
process grow more irrelevant each day. "No Pasaran!"
the people cry out but to whom and what they are
alluding to remains to be defined.
--------------------------------
John Ross's ZAPATISTAS! Making Another World Possible:
Chronicles of Resistance 2000-2006 will be published by
Nation Books this October. Ross will travel the Left
Coast this fall with both ZAPATISTAS! and a new
chapbook of poetry BOMBA! and is still looking for
possible venues. Send suggestions to johnross@igc.org
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Our Struggle and Brazil
Our Struggle and Brazil
Understanding Brazil is important to understanding Latin America and the U.S. relationship to Latin America. They have an important election in October. I, as a intense reader of Latin American stuff, dramatically under estimated the size and dynamic nature of the Brazilian economy and society prior to visiting there. It is the major player on South America. Sao Paulo, for example has 20 million people. And the P.T. has often governed that state.
I think we have much to learn from Brazil; and from the PRD in Mexico. They went from a small, dedicated group of socialists to mass parties able to win elections.
Often, the P.T. has faced governing several states and the nation, It is important to see how a left changes when it moves from organizing to governing. We have much to learn.
Note: in judging the P.T., they never had a majority in the Congress. They won the Presidency, but the Congress is divided among over 13 parties with shifting alliances. This explains a great deal about the P.T's ability to implement all of the intended reforms.
One of the most important reforms was in public education.
The piece below is from the conservative magazine The Economist.
"The political system is notable for the fragmentary nature of parties and the efforts that governments must make to forge and to maintain workable congressional coalitions. The PT has a minority in both houses of Congress, but has the support of several centre-left parties. During 2003 it also secured the backing of the elements of the centrist PMDB, support from which strengthened the administration’s position in the Senate.
The opposition comprises the PFL, a conservative party that originated in the north-east, and the PSDB. The PT will be able to count on the support of PSDB for support on legislation such as social security reform only to the extent that it pushes that party’s reform agenda in Congress; the PSDB is already irritated that the PT voted against these measures in opposition. Worried that the PT will usurp its position as the leading party on the centre-left, the PSDB has targeted the PT’s record on social policy for criticism. A more vigorous opposition is likely to emerge if Mr da Silva’s popularity diminishes.
Despite his strong personal mandate and authority within the PT, Mr da Silva will have to work hard to maintain party discipline within the governing coalition. The PT, in power for the first time, traces its origins to trade union struggles against the military regime in the 1970s and early 1980s. The party constitutes a broad political church, embracing individuals whose views range from traditional socialist to more modern social democrat. Mr da Silva himself has undergone a political transformation. Born into a poor family, he worked as a lathe operator before coming to prominence as a radical union leader. Having lost the previous three presidential elections, he moderated his stance, taking the PT to the centre, a policy that paid off in the 2002 election. Part of the modern social democratic wing of the PT, Mr da Silva now espouses a range of pragmatic economic and social policies, and accepts that the market and the private sector have an important role to play in the development of Brazil. These views are not universally accepted within the PT or by some parties in the congressional governing coalition. Consequently, Mr da Silva will have to overcome resistance from his own political supporters to implement his programme of orthodox macroeconomic policy and social reform. At the end of 2003 the government showed its determination to carry through its agenda by expelling from the PT those of its legislators who had voted against the social security reform. Outside Congress, the media, in particular television, play a significant role in forming public opinion. Since the advent of democracy investigative journalism has had a decisive role in politics, notably in the impeachment of Mr Collor in 1992. Elements of the broadcast media have not been well-disposed towards either Mr da Silva or his party in the past, but relations have improved since the election as the president has maintained a prudent policy stance.
Mr da Silva will draw support from another important extra-congressional political constituency, the trade union movement. The main union organisations, the Central Unica dos Trabalhadores and Forca Sindical, have a long history of supporting the PT, and this position is unlikely to change, although the unions are wary about the possibility of the introduction of new labour legislation. Business organisations, notably the Confederacao Nacional das Industrias and the Federacao das Industrias do Estado de Sao Paulo, have usually opposed the PT’s policy platform, but have reassessed this stance since the party gained power and shifted to the centre, and the private sector is working productively alongside the new government. The Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST, the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement) has also traditionally been closely aligned with the PT. It had curtailed direct actions using land invasions during the election campaign to help the PT to win over moderate voters, but has now stepped up direct action again in support of its demands for land distribution."
Duane Campbell
Understanding Brazil is important to understanding Latin America and the U.S. relationship to Latin America. They have an important election in October. I, as a intense reader of Latin American stuff, dramatically under estimated the size and dynamic nature of the Brazilian economy and society prior to visiting there. It is the major player on South America. Sao Paulo, for example has 20 million people. And the P.T. has often governed that state.
I think we have much to learn from Brazil; and from the PRD in Mexico. They went from a small, dedicated group of socialists to mass parties able to win elections.
Often, the P.T. has faced governing several states and the nation, It is important to see how a left changes when it moves from organizing to governing. We have much to learn.
Note: in judging the P.T., they never had a majority in the Congress. They won the Presidency, but the Congress is divided among over 13 parties with shifting alliances. This explains a great deal about the P.T's ability to implement all of the intended reforms.
One of the most important reforms was in public education.
The piece below is from the conservative magazine The Economist.
"The political system is notable for the fragmentary nature of parties and the efforts that governments must make to forge and to maintain workable congressional coalitions. The PT has a minority in both houses of Congress, but has the support of several centre-left parties. During 2003 it also secured the backing of the elements of the centrist PMDB, support from which strengthened the administration’s position in the Senate.
The opposition comprises the PFL, a conservative party that originated in the north-east, and the PSDB. The PT will be able to count on the support of PSDB for support on legislation such as social security reform only to the extent that it pushes that party’s reform agenda in Congress; the PSDB is already irritated that the PT voted against these measures in opposition. Worried that the PT will usurp its position as the leading party on the centre-left, the PSDB has targeted the PT’s record on social policy for criticism. A more vigorous opposition is likely to emerge if Mr da Silva’s popularity diminishes.
Despite his strong personal mandate and authority within the PT, Mr da Silva will have to work hard to maintain party discipline within the governing coalition. The PT, in power for the first time, traces its origins to trade union struggles against the military regime in the 1970s and early 1980s. The party constitutes a broad political church, embracing individuals whose views range from traditional socialist to more modern social democrat. Mr da Silva himself has undergone a political transformation. Born into a poor family, he worked as a lathe operator before coming to prominence as a radical union leader. Having lost the previous three presidential elections, he moderated his stance, taking the PT to the centre, a policy that paid off in the 2002 election. Part of the modern social democratic wing of the PT, Mr da Silva now espouses a range of pragmatic economic and social policies, and accepts that the market and the private sector have an important role to play in the development of Brazil. These views are not universally accepted within the PT or by some parties in the congressional governing coalition. Consequently, Mr da Silva will have to overcome resistance from his own political supporters to implement his programme of orthodox macroeconomic policy and social reform. At the end of 2003 the government showed its determination to carry through its agenda by expelling from the PT those of its legislators who had voted against the social security reform. Outside Congress, the media, in particular television, play a significant role in forming public opinion. Since the advent of democracy investigative journalism has had a decisive role in politics, notably in the impeachment of Mr Collor in 1992. Elements of the broadcast media have not been well-disposed towards either Mr da Silva or his party in the past, but relations have improved since the election as the president has maintained a prudent policy stance.
Mr da Silva will draw support from another important extra-congressional political constituency, the trade union movement. The main union organisations, the Central Unica dos Trabalhadores and Forca Sindical, have a long history of supporting the PT, and this position is unlikely to change, although the unions are wary about the possibility of the introduction of new labour legislation. Business organisations, notably the Confederacao Nacional das Industrias and the Federacao das Industrias do Estado de Sao Paulo, have usually opposed the PT’s policy platform, but have reassessed this stance since the party gained power and shifted to the centre, and the private sector is working productively alongside the new government. The Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST, the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement) has also traditionally been closely aligned with the PT. It had curtailed direct actions using land invasions during the election campaign to help the PT to win over moderate voters, but has now stepped up direct action again in support of its demands for land distribution."
Duane Campbell
Friday, August 18, 2006
National Immigration Conference
700 Immigrant Rights Activists form National Alliance;
set protests for Labor Day weekend and September 30
By Joaquin Bustelo
cross-posted from Marxmail.org
CHICAGO - Hundreds of immigrant activists and
supporters met in Chicago August 11-13 in a national
strategy convention of the legalization-for-all wing of
the movement.
The event was the largest of at least three national
gatherings of immigration activists held over the
summer, and the one that was directly based on the
"Calendar Coalitions," as the Latino-led grass-roots-
based left wing of the immigrant rights movement is
popularly known because many local groups take their
name from the date they were formed or held a
significant action.
The main decision of the convention was to found a
National Alliance for Immigrant Rights around the
central demands of a halt to all deportations and full
legalization for all immigrants. A national
coordinating council was created with the participation
of activists from all over the country.
"The most important thing is that we gave the movement
a national structure that will allow us to coordinate
our actions," Jorge Mujica, one of the key organizers
of the convention told reporters shortly after the
meeting concluded.
"We have transformed ourselves into a national
movement."
The Alliance also projected a series of nationally-
coordinated local actions, the first during the Labor
Day holiday weekend, the second on September 30, right
before the beginning of the government's new fiscal
year and Congress's adjournment for the elections.
These protests will be demanding not just legalization
for all, but an immediate moratorium on all
deportations and round-ups pending Congressional
enactment of a comprehensive immigration reform.
Right now Congress is deadlocked on the issue. The
House has passed a punitive, so-called "enforcement"-
only act which militarizes the border and brands all
undocumented immigrants as "aggravated felons."
Attempts by the Senate to reach a "compromise" with the
House have only led to a Senate Bill that incorporates
many of the repressive features of the House version
and has a convoluted, multi-tiered structure for a
temporary semi-legalization that would not cover many
millions of undocumented workers already in the country
and puts off citizenship for those that do qualify
almost two decades.
This attempted "compromise" has been rejected by the
Republican House leadership.
The conference voted to oppose both these bills.
"Better no law than a bad law,"Â said Nativo Lopez,
president of the Mexican American Political Association
and a leader of the movement in Los Angeles.
Instead, the convention agreed to counterpose to bills
like those, an immediate a moratorium on raids and
deportations pending further Congressional action.
The generalization of the moratorium demand to the
national movement as a whole represents an important
advance in taking into account the desperation of
millions of undocumented who want full legalization for
all, but consider even a partial and punitive
legalization better than no legalization at all.
Attendance at the convention far exceeded the
expectations of the organizers. They had expected 300
participants at the event. In reality more than 400
formally registered, and many more participated without
registering. Organizers estimated that, in all, around
700 people took part.
The big majority of those attending were Latinos, with
Mexicans the biggest Latino nationality, as they are in
the population as a whole. Reflecting the immigrant
composition of the majority, the convention was mostly
conducted in Spanish with simultaneous translation into
English.
For many participants, an important part of the
conference was the convening of a women's caucus that
demanded full, equal participation by women in all
aspects of the movement.
The impetus for the formation of the caucus came from
Latina activists in their 20's who objected to the
virtually all-male slate of presenters and chairs
organized for the first plenary session of the
convention.
The convention as a whole unanimously approved motions
from the caucus requiring equal female representation
in all leading bodies and among spokespeople and
national coordinators.
set protests for Labor Day weekend and September 30
By Joaquin Bustelo
cross-posted from Marxmail.org
CHICAGO - Hundreds of immigrant activists and
supporters met in Chicago August 11-13 in a national
strategy convention of the legalization-for-all wing of
the movement.
The event was the largest of at least three national
gatherings of immigration activists held over the
summer, and the one that was directly based on the
"Calendar Coalitions," as the Latino-led grass-roots-
based left wing of the immigrant rights movement is
popularly known because many local groups take their
name from the date they were formed or held a
significant action.
The main decision of the convention was to found a
National Alliance for Immigrant Rights around the
central demands of a halt to all deportations and full
legalization for all immigrants. A national
coordinating council was created with the participation
of activists from all over the country.
"The most important thing is that we gave the movement
a national structure that will allow us to coordinate
our actions," Jorge Mujica, one of the key organizers
of the convention told reporters shortly after the
meeting concluded.
"We have transformed ourselves into a national
movement."
The Alliance also projected a series of nationally-
coordinated local actions, the first during the Labor
Day holiday weekend, the second on September 30, right
before the beginning of the government's new fiscal
year and Congress's adjournment for the elections.
These protests will be demanding not just legalization
for all, but an immediate moratorium on all
deportations and round-ups pending Congressional
enactment of a comprehensive immigration reform.
Right now Congress is deadlocked on the issue. The
House has passed a punitive, so-called "enforcement"-
only act which militarizes the border and brands all
undocumented immigrants as "aggravated felons."
Attempts by the Senate to reach a "compromise" with the
House have only led to a Senate Bill that incorporates
many of the repressive features of the House version
and has a convoluted, multi-tiered structure for a
temporary semi-legalization that would not cover many
millions of undocumented workers already in the country
and puts off citizenship for those that do qualify
almost two decades.
This attempted "compromise" has been rejected by the
Republican House leadership.
The conference voted to oppose both these bills.
"Better no law than a bad law,"Â said Nativo Lopez,
president of the Mexican American Political Association
and a leader of the movement in Los Angeles.
Instead, the convention agreed to counterpose to bills
like those, an immediate a moratorium on raids and
deportations pending further Congressional action.
The generalization of the moratorium demand to the
national movement as a whole represents an important
advance in taking into account the desperation of
millions of undocumented who want full legalization for
all, but consider even a partial and punitive
legalization better than no legalization at all.
Attendance at the convention far exceeded the
expectations of the organizers. They had expected 300
participants at the event. In reality more than 400
formally registered, and many more participated without
registering. Organizers estimated that, in all, around
700 people took part.
The big majority of those attending were Latinos, with
Mexicans the biggest Latino nationality, as they are in
the population as a whole. Reflecting the immigrant
composition of the majority, the convention was mostly
conducted in Spanish with simultaneous translation into
English.
For many participants, an important part of the
conference was the convening of a women's caucus that
demanded full, equal participation by women in all
aspects of the movement.
The impetus for the formation of the caucus came from
Latina activists in their 20's who objected to the
virtually all-male slate of presenters and chairs
organized for the first plenary session of the
convention.
The convention as a whole unanimously approved motions
from the caucus requiring equal female representation
in all leading bodies and among spokespeople and
national coordinators.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Venezuela
Venezuelan democracy looks alive, despite doubts
Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:09 AM ET
By Terry Wade
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Listen to the White House and one might think President Hugo Chavez has turned oil-rich Venezuela into a totalitarian state like Cuba, lacking a free press, freedom of speech and multi-party elections.
Despite the United States' rhetoric against Chavez, elements of democracy are easy to see in Venezuela, political scientists say. But they warn that a drop in oil prices would change the country's political dynamic and could prompt Chavez to become more repressive.
A vigorous local press now frequently lambastes Chavez, berating him for buying billions of dollars in weapons from Russia or accusing him of giving away huge quantities of oil to foreign allies. Newspapers run the gamut of political opinion.
Voter registration has risen sharply, the government says, as it brings people -- often poor -- into the political system who never before exercised their right to vote.
Chavez has called for a social revolution in Venezuela, and the government has an incentive to sign up the poor as most of them will vote for Chavez to thank him for his generous social programs, analysts say. But enabling people to cast ballots is widely viewed as fundamental to democracy.
Sky-high oil prices have made it easier for Chavez to fund campaign pledges to fight poverty. That reciprocity between voters and elected officials is also viewed as a cornerstone of democracy -- and has kept his popularity above 50 percent.
"The system is more democratic than many people believe, though that could change in the future," said Thad Dunning, assistant professor of political science at Yale University who does research in Caracas.
The country's 1999 constitution has at times made Chavez vulnerable, although it also broadened his powers. The constitution allows citizens to petition for a referendum to keep or fire the sitting president.
In 2004, Chavez survived a referendum to depose him. After stalling, he won his third election in a vote international observers called clean though the opposition cried foul.
A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY?
To be sure, critics say Chavez has populist tendencies and sometimes has shown an urge to centralize power. He has ridiculed the opposition press and threatened to close TV stations under a new law that could be used to quash dissent.
Opponents say he stacked the supreme court, the electoral authority, the state oil company and central bank with allies.
The European Union and Organization of American States have denounced officials for using voter data to fire state workers who signed a petition for a referendum against Chavez.
Chavez' foreign policy includes visiting Iran, forging close ties to Cuba and jousting verbally with the White House.
President Bush has called Chavez a threat to democracy. But political scientists say the biggest recent threat to democracy in Venezuela was a failed coup attempt against Chavez in 2002.
In the domestic sphere, Chavez's revolutionary rhetoric has mostly translated into social spending for the impoverished. Chavez, a flamboyant speaker first elected in 1998, funds programs for cheap food, literacy and healthcare.
In the financial world, he has faithfully paid foreign and local lenders.
Unlike previous socialist regimes around the world, the rich have not been forced to leave the country. Thousands fled revolutions in China and Cuba, fearing political violence.
Wealthy Venezuelans are enjoying the current economic boom, driving big cars, wearing fancy jewelry and living in luxurious homes surrounded by the verdant hills of tropical Caracas.
POLITICAL FALLOUT FROM DROP IN OIL PRICES
Still, tensions between the rich and poor could intensify, analysts say, if oil prices drop from record levels.
"The big question is what Chavez would do," said Pedro Palma, economist and lecturer at the IESA business school in Caracas. "There could be a very dramatic crisis."
Businesses owned by the rich could suffer and, lacking windfall profits from oil exports, Chavez might be forced to cut back on generous social programs or raise unpopular taxes to keep them going.
In that case, Chavez -- who is widely expected to defeat a splintered opposition in December and win re-election to a six-year term -- might evolve to become more hard-line.
His power grew last year when an opposition boycott of parliamentary elections handed Chavistas all seats in Congress.
"I think that if petroleum prices decline then authoritarianism will increase because the government would have to repress demands from the poor," Eduardo Fernandez, a former presidential candidate, told Reuters.
"It is sad that there is no viable alternative to Chavez because you end up with an unbalanced political system."
Reuters.
Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:09 AM ET
By Terry Wade
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Listen to the White House and one might think President Hugo Chavez has turned oil-rich Venezuela into a totalitarian state like Cuba, lacking a free press, freedom of speech and multi-party elections.
Despite the United States' rhetoric against Chavez, elements of democracy are easy to see in Venezuela, political scientists say. But they warn that a drop in oil prices would change the country's political dynamic and could prompt Chavez to become more repressive.
A vigorous local press now frequently lambastes Chavez, berating him for buying billions of dollars in weapons from Russia or accusing him of giving away huge quantities of oil to foreign allies. Newspapers run the gamut of political opinion.
Voter registration has risen sharply, the government says, as it brings people -- often poor -- into the political system who never before exercised their right to vote.
Chavez has called for a social revolution in Venezuela, and the government has an incentive to sign up the poor as most of them will vote for Chavez to thank him for his generous social programs, analysts say. But enabling people to cast ballots is widely viewed as fundamental to democracy.
Sky-high oil prices have made it easier for Chavez to fund campaign pledges to fight poverty. That reciprocity between voters and elected officials is also viewed as a cornerstone of democracy -- and has kept his popularity above 50 percent.
"The system is more democratic than many people believe, though that could change in the future," said Thad Dunning, assistant professor of political science at Yale University who does research in Caracas.
The country's 1999 constitution has at times made Chavez vulnerable, although it also broadened his powers. The constitution allows citizens to petition for a referendum to keep or fire the sitting president.
In 2004, Chavez survived a referendum to depose him. After stalling, he won his third election in a vote international observers called clean though the opposition cried foul.
A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY?
To be sure, critics say Chavez has populist tendencies and sometimes has shown an urge to centralize power. He has ridiculed the opposition press and threatened to close TV stations under a new law that could be used to quash dissent.
Opponents say he stacked the supreme court, the electoral authority, the state oil company and central bank with allies.
The European Union and Organization of American States have denounced officials for using voter data to fire state workers who signed a petition for a referendum against Chavez.
Chavez' foreign policy includes visiting Iran, forging close ties to Cuba and jousting verbally with the White House.
President Bush has called Chavez a threat to democracy. But political scientists say the biggest recent threat to democracy in Venezuela was a failed coup attempt against Chavez in 2002.
In the domestic sphere, Chavez's revolutionary rhetoric has mostly translated into social spending for the impoverished. Chavez, a flamboyant speaker first elected in 1998, funds programs for cheap food, literacy and healthcare.
In the financial world, he has faithfully paid foreign and local lenders.
Unlike previous socialist regimes around the world, the rich have not been forced to leave the country. Thousands fled revolutions in China and Cuba, fearing political violence.
Wealthy Venezuelans are enjoying the current economic boom, driving big cars, wearing fancy jewelry and living in luxurious homes surrounded by the verdant hills of tropical Caracas.
POLITICAL FALLOUT FROM DROP IN OIL PRICES
Still, tensions between the rich and poor could intensify, analysts say, if oil prices drop from record levels.
"The big question is what Chavez would do," said Pedro Palma, economist and lecturer at the IESA business school in Caracas. "There could be a very dramatic crisis."
Businesses owned by the rich could suffer and, lacking windfall profits from oil exports, Chavez might be forced to cut back on generous social programs or raise unpopular taxes to keep them going.
In that case, Chavez -- who is widely expected to defeat a splintered opposition in December and win re-election to a six-year term -- might evolve to become more hard-line.
His power grew last year when an opposition boycott of parliamentary elections handed Chavistas all seats in Congress.
"I think that if petroleum prices decline then authoritarianism will increase because the government would have to repress demands from the poor," Eduardo Fernandez, a former presidential candidate, told Reuters.
"It is sad that there is no viable alternative to Chavez because you end up with an unbalanced political system."
Reuters.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Truely Shameful : Congressman John Doolittle
From the Sacramento Bee. Opinion. July 30.
Editorial: Truly shameful
Doolittle tries to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment with a bogus e-mail 'poll'
Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, July 30, 2006
With congressional elections just three months away, politicians across the country are hoping to whip up a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment and ride it to victory. Few are pushing this distasteful strategy as hard as John Doolittle, the Republican congressman from Rocklin.
In a recent e-mail to constituents on his congressional letterhead, Doolittle is conducting what he calls a "poll" on the question, "Should illegal immigrants be allowed to vote in our elections?"
This is nothing but scaremongering and electioneering. The question itself is silly, and Doolittle knows it.
Of course illegal immigrants should not be allowed to vote, and they are not. There are laws against it and stiff penalties for those who break those laws. And all of the available evidence suggests violations are rare.
Doolittle's "poll" ignores all that. In bold print he asserts flatly that "many illegal immigrants" are voting in our elections. He asserts, again in bold print, "Some estimate that thousands of illegal immigrants are allowed to vote each year."
Doolittle, the e-mail declares, intends to "stop this outrageous and illegal activity." He invites recipients to "participate in a districtwide poll I am conducting," which he says he will present to his colleagues in Congress.
The e-mail is clearly intended to convince Doolittle's constituents that hordes of illegal immigrants are voting in U.S. elections. But is that so? A June 22 hearing of the House Committee on Administration, which Doolittle attended, made it clear that the evidence of illegals voting is minuscule and anecdotal.
At that hearing, much was made of a Department of Justice report of vote fraud prosecutions from October 2002 through October 2005. But a look at the report shows that a grand total of 13 noncitizens were convicted of voting in U.S. elections. That is 13 ballots out of 196,139,871 cast between October 2002 and August 2005. Most of those who voted illegally were legal residents, not "illegal immigrants".
Editorial: Truly shameful
Doolittle tries to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment with a bogus e-mail 'poll'
Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, July 30, 2006
With congressional elections just three months away, politicians across the country are hoping to whip up a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment and ride it to victory. Few are pushing this distasteful strategy as hard as John Doolittle, the Republican congressman from Rocklin.
In a recent e-mail to constituents on his congressional letterhead, Doolittle is conducting what he calls a "poll" on the question, "Should illegal immigrants be allowed to vote in our elections?"
This is nothing but scaremongering and electioneering. The question itself is silly, and Doolittle knows it.
Of course illegal immigrants should not be allowed to vote, and they are not. There are laws against it and stiff penalties for those who break those laws. And all of the available evidence suggests violations are rare.
Doolittle's "poll" ignores all that. In bold print he asserts flatly that "many illegal immigrants" are voting in our elections. He asserts, again in bold print, "Some estimate that thousands of illegal immigrants are allowed to vote each year."
Doolittle, the e-mail declares, intends to "stop this outrageous and illegal activity." He invites recipients to "participate in a districtwide poll I am conducting," which he says he will present to his colleagues in Congress.
The e-mail is clearly intended to convince Doolittle's constituents that hordes of illegal immigrants are voting in U.S. elections. But is that so? A June 22 hearing of the House Committee on Administration, which Doolittle attended, made it clear that the evidence of illegals voting is minuscule and anecdotal.
At that hearing, much was made of a Department of Justice report of vote fraud prosecutions from October 2002 through October 2005. But a look at the report shows that a grand total of 13 noncitizens were convicted of voting in U.S. elections. That is 13 ballots out of 196,139,871 cast between October 2002 and August 2005. Most of those who voted illegally were legal residents, not "illegal immigrants".
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The Mexican Elections were stolen; Like Florida in 2000
Here are the details.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_k_galbraith/2006/07/the_mexican_standoff.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_k_galbraith/2006/07/the_mexican_standoff.html
Saturday, July 15, 2006
NY Times and the Mexican elections
What a strange, one sided story ,” Video, Doubts and Backlash in Mexican Vote,” by Ginger Thompson in the New York Times of July 14, 2006.
The writer used a very selective use of examples, each chosen to support the PAN election rather than providing a balanced story. Given that there is substantive evidence that the Mexican election of 1988 was stolen, the effort of Lopez Obrador to demand election integrity and a ballot by ballot count of the votes is appropriate.
The Bush regime’s contact with PAN through Choice Point is even more troubling. I wish that Al Gore would have challenged the elections in Florida 2000 with this vigor.
Defending elector democracy, opposing electoral fraud is well worth fighting for – even when it reveals a deeply divided country.
The Obrador campaign is demanding democracy- the respect for the right of a majority to win elections.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Sacramento, Calif.
The writer used a very selective use of examples, each chosen to support the PAN election rather than providing a balanced story. Given that there is substantive evidence that the Mexican election of 1988 was stolen, the effort of Lopez Obrador to demand election integrity and a ballot by ballot count of the votes is appropriate.
The Bush regime’s contact with PAN through Choice Point is even more troubling. I wish that Al Gore would have challenged the elections in Florida 2000 with this vigor.
Defending elector democracy, opposing electoral fraud is well worth fighting for – even when it reveals a deeply divided country.
The Obrador campaign is demanding democracy- the respect for the right of a majority to win elections.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Sacramento, Calif.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Latinos and Aztlan
Right wingers create a story and the press repeats it.
Capital Weekly: Sacramento, California
Latino pols dream of Aztlán, anti-immigration groups charge
By Malcolm Maclachlan
(published July 13th, 2006)
It sounds like paranoid plot of a suspense novel: a conspiracy by Latino politicians and activists to re-conquer the American Southwest and expel all non-Latinos.
But a loose coalition of groups has used renewed interest in immigration issues to launch a campaign to draw attention to what they say is evidence of just such an agenda. This includes an ad campaign designed to make people aware of what they say are treasonous statements by some of California's most prominent and respected Latino politicians.
"They are all reconquistas," said Evelyn Miller, describing the Democratic Latino Caucus. Miller is a spokeswoman for the Huntington Beach-based California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR). The group said that many powerful Latino Democrats support Aztlán, a Latino homeland that would be formed by the secession of several Western states that were once part of Mexico.
"Aztlán is an old concept that holds little meaning to many Latinos,"
countered Abel Valenzuela, a Chicano Studies professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Most Latinos/Chicanos--and undocumented immigrants--don't even know what the term means."
It doesn't take much looking to find people who are openly supportive of the reconquista concept.
Much more. Read the story.
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=849
Capital Weekly: Sacramento, California
Latino pols dream of Aztlán, anti-immigration groups charge
By Malcolm Maclachlan
(published July 13th, 2006)
It sounds like paranoid plot of a suspense novel: a conspiracy by Latino politicians and activists to re-conquer the American Southwest and expel all non-Latinos.
But a loose coalition of groups has used renewed interest in immigration issues to launch a campaign to draw attention to what they say is evidence of just such an agenda. This includes an ad campaign designed to make people aware of what they say are treasonous statements by some of California's most prominent and respected Latino politicians.
"They are all reconquistas," said Evelyn Miller, describing the Democratic Latino Caucus. Miller is a spokeswoman for the Huntington Beach-based California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR). The group said that many powerful Latino Democrats support Aztlán, a Latino homeland that would be formed by the secession of several Western states that were once part of Mexico.
"Aztlán is an old concept that holds little meaning to many Latinos,"
countered Abel Valenzuela, a Chicano Studies professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Most Latinos/Chicanos--and undocumented immigrants--don't even know what the term means."
It doesn't take much looking to find people who are openly supportive of the reconquista concept.
Much more. Read the story.
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=849
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
NCLR and immigrants rights
From Javier Rodriguez H. Media & Political Strategist for March 25th
Coalition of Los Angeles July 9, 2006
Yesterday Saturday July 8, at the NLCR National Conference, at the close
of the first immigration panel, in the most diplomatic fashion, I
extended an invitation to Angelica Salas, CHIRLA's Executive Director a
long time committed defender of immigrant rights, but also supporter of
the present compromise on immigration reform for a concerted public
debate. The basis for my proposition, I told her, are the major
differences we exhibit daily in our approach to resolve, one of the most
pressing issues in this country, the regularization of the estimated
twelve million immigrants in the US. I conveyed the idea that it was
time to communicate with civility and that we could converse over the
details and the rules of conduct in the public encounter. She agreed we
would talk over the venture and we exchanged cards.
As you are also aware, yesterday, our March 25 Coalition staged a
protest at the Los Angeles Convention Center, the NCLR Conference site.
It was over that organization's support of the S2611 Hagel- Martinez and
the Sensenbrenner Bills. Both which our coalition, as well as over four
hundred national organizations oppose. In this column we have the
AFL-CIO, the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and most
of the coalitions that were galvanized to the mega marches and the
boycott during these last four months. Additionally we protested the
inclusion of 1) former President Bill Clinton, the Operation Keeper
signee which has brought us over 4,000 deaths and continuing, plus the
unbearable pain for hundreds of thousands of immigrants having to cross
in the most dangerous desolate areas of the border. 2) The presence of
Karl Rove, the Bush Administration Rasputin and war monger, 3) the US
Marines sponsoring Latino Leadership, a no brainer, with deaths of over
2,500 American soldiers and more dramatic over 100,000 Iraqis dead, in a
fabricated war for Corporate America, the unmistakable enemy of Labor.
Furthermore, NCLR is one of several Latino Establishment national
organizations (who were co-opted by the Mexican Government of Carlos
Salinas de Gortari) who brought us NAFTA, vehemently opposed by Labor
and signed by Clinton in 1993. NAFTA was supposed to have elevated
Mexico to the First World and was to also end immigration. Predictably
the opposite ensued: mexico's poverty rate has increased fifty to sixty
million people, thanks to NAFTA's savage exploitation of Mexican
resources and labor and US protectionist trade. The result has been the
escape valve, more immigration.
Amazingly, except for the AFSCME speaker, none of the above was
addressed by LA County Federation-Maria Elena Durazo, UFW-Arturo
Rodriguez, SEIU-Eliseo Medina, John Wilhelm-HERE, or CHIRLA's Angelica
Salas. No analysis of capital and the globalization of labor, nor the
concentration of wealth and the expansion of world poverty and misery.
And it was clear from the panelists, both for the morning session as
well as the afternoon "Town Hall" gathering sponsored by SEIU, that the
hot topic was immigration reform. Over three hundred people attended the
Town Hall meeting. And of course the panel was stacked five to one in
favor of the more conservative Change to Win Labor Coalition and the
NCLR facilitator, Cecilia Munoz. The program was absolutely orchestrated
with handpicked floor participants and SEIU and HERE members were herded
in as cheer leaders or "acarreados by their Charro leaders" as we
Mexicans say. Opposing views were almost obliterated. After UTLA's Sarah
Knopp spoke against the "compromise" I was finally going to be given
the floor, but then the red alarm sounded and that old UFW icon, who got
a standing ovation minutes before, hurried to the isle, took the
microphone and attempted to divert the topic. Then, according to
Yucatan's Federation President Gladys Pinto, the NCLR floor worker had
been instructed by SEIU Mike Garcia to not give me the floor.
So the young lady in the Washington suit, confused, looked at me, as if
to apologize, turned and walked to Cecilia Munoz and obviously informed
her of the uncomfortable developments and suddenly the "Town Hall"
discussion came to a stop. Of course I was going to add to Knopp's
intervention and emphasize that experts, dozens of them, including
Constitutional Atty. Peter Schey and our own Atty. Isabel Rodriguez,
estimate that under the Martinez-Hagel three tier legalization plan over
6 of the 12 million targeted immigrants will be left out of and probably
worst in the compromise with HR4437. But also as important I would have
pointed out the super long wait for the five year or more qualified
undocumented applicants. Initially with the earned legalization concept,
they will get 6 years of consecutive permits and then after apply, if
they still qualify, for permanent residency. It will not be automatic
for they will then be placed in back of the line of the 3.3 million
other would be immigrants in process. Because the reform does not
address this long waiting line, ahead are another 6 to 8 more years, of
course with permits, to obtain the coveted "Green Card". And further,
another five years to qualify for citizenship.
This hard reality can not be hidden. The 2.5 million that were left out
of the IRCA Amnesty of 1986 will have had a 42 year wait to vote. For
remembrance, with the 1986 legalization, the immigrant population
applied immediately and was given a one year permit for $150.00 and at
the end of that year, the applicant received the Residency Card. Five
years after, citizenship. . As simple as that.I know, our Esat L.A.
center processed over 10,000 applicants.
These and dozens of other reasons are why over four hundred national
organizations, including us the March 25 Coalition of Los Angeles and
San Diego, are campaigning to derail the draconian compromise. We
believe these bills are totally corporate designed to continue the
modern enslavement of the immigrant population. We definitely know the
millions the people, who marched and boycotted, did so, for full
legalization and family unity. Not for more border deaths, walls,
increased militarization or the criminalization of working people.
Interestingly, the NCLR gatherings showed the superficial depth of the
compromising faction in this historic movement. The LA March 25th one
million plus demonstration, the galvanization of the country's immigrant
population and the massive May 1st Gran Paro Americano/ The Great
American Boycott, were not mentioned period, zilt, in the compromiser's
presentations. And this campaigns, without a doubt, are both a People's
American Story. March 25th was hatched in three weeks, with a $15,000
budget and a much heralded but masterful media and political strategy.
All this in spite of the attempts to co-opt it, divide it, derail it,
clearly sabotaged by the SEIU and County Fed Pit Bulls, in addition to
the government and corporate funded immigrant rights organizations
mercenary "Media Consultants". This massive mobilization, the largest in
the history of this movement, made history and injected the immigrant
community and its allies unto the national scene as never before. Then
came April 10th -which directly was not ours, but by then we were
organizing the national boycott. Another first. And we shut down
Southern, Central and Northern California and many parts of the country.
Again, in spite of this gigantic grass roots efforts being "Scabbed
on", by all of the above, plus Cardinal Roger Mahoney, Mayor Antonio
Villaraigoza, Gov. Shwarzenneger, and President Bush, never the less, in
large and small cities, millions were mobilized. It was absolutely the
dream of "A Day without Immigrants" made a reality, a militant reality.
Coalition of Los Angeles July 9, 2006
Yesterday Saturday July 8, at the NLCR National Conference, at the close
of the first immigration panel, in the most diplomatic fashion, I
extended an invitation to Angelica Salas, CHIRLA's Executive Director a
long time committed defender of immigrant rights, but also supporter of
the present compromise on immigration reform for a concerted public
debate. The basis for my proposition, I told her, are the major
differences we exhibit daily in our approach to resolve, one of the most
pressing issues in this country, the regularization of the estimated
twelve million immigrants in the US. I conveyed the idea that it was
time to communicate with civility and that we could converse over the
details and the rules of conduct in the public encounter. She agreed we
would talk over the venture and we exchanged cards.
As you are also aware, yesterday, our March 25 Coalition staged a
protest at the Los Angeles Convention Center, the NCLR Conference site.
It was over that organization's support of the S2611 Hagel- Martinez and
the Sensenbrenner Bills. Both which our coalition, as well as over four
hundred national organizations oppose. In this column we have the
AFL-CIO, the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and most
of the coalitions that were galvanized to the mega marches and the
boycott during these last four months. Additionally we protested the
inclusion of 1) former President Bill Clinton, the Operation Keeper
signee which has brought us over 4,000 deaths and continuing, plus the
unbearable pain for hundreds of thousands of immigrants having to cross
in the most dangerous desolate areas of the border. 2) The presence of
Karl Rove, the Bush Administration Rasputin and war monger, 3) the US
Marines sponsoring Latino Leadership, a no brainer, with deaths of over
2,500 American soldiers and more dramatic over 100,000 Iraqis dead, in a
fabricated war for Corporate America, the unmistakable enemy of Labor.
Furthermore, NCLR is one of several Latino Establishment national
organizations (who were co-opted by the Mexican Government of Carlos
Salinas de Gortari) who brought us NAFTA, vehemently opposed by Labor
and signed by Clinton in 1993. NAFTA was supposed to have elevated
Mexico to the First World and was to also end immigration. Predictably
the opposite ensued: mexico's poverty rate has increased fifty to sixty
million people, thanks to NAFTA's savage exploitation of Mexican
resources and labor and US protectionist trade. The result has been the
escape valve, more immigration.
Amazingly, except for the AFSCME speaker, none of the above was
addressed by LA County Federation-Maria Elena Durazo, UFW-Arturo
Rodriguez, SEIU-Eliseo Medina, John Wilhelm-HERE, or CHIRLA's Angelica
Salas. No analysis of capital and the globalization of labor, nor the
concentration of wealth and the expansion of world poverty and misery.
And it was clear from the panelists, both for the morning session as
well as the afternoon "Town Hall" gathering sponsored by SEIU, that the
hot topic was immigration reform. Over three hundred people attended the
Town Hall meeting. And of course the panel was stacked five to one in
favor of the more conservative Change to Win Labor Coalition and the
NCLR facilitator, Cecilia Munoz. The program was absolutely orchestrated
with handpicked floor participants and SEIU and HERE members were herded
in as cheer leaders or "acarreados by their Charro leaders" as we
Mexicans say. Opposing views were almost obliterated. After UTLA's Sarah
Knopp spoke against the "compromise" I was finally going to be given
the floor, but then the red alarm sounded and that old UFW icon, who got
a standing ovation minutes before, hurried to the isle, took the
microphone and attempted to divert the topic. Then, according to
Yucatan's Federation President Gladys Pinto, the NCLR floor worker had
been instructed by SEIU Mike Garcia to not give me the floor.
So the young lady in the Washington suit, confused, looked at me, as if
to apologize, turned and walked to Cecilia Munoz and obviously informed
her of the uncomfortable developments and suddenly the "Town Hall"
discussion came to a stop. Of course I was going to add to Knopp's
intervention and emphasize that experts, dozens of them, including
Constitutional Atty. Peter Schey and our own Atty. Isabel Rodriguez,
estimate that under the Martinez-Hagel three tier legalization plan over
6 of the 12 million targeted immigrants will be left out of and probably
worst in the compromise with HR4437. But also as important I would have
pointed out the super long wait for the five year or more qualified
undocumented applicants. Initially with the earned legalization concept,
they will get 6 years of consecutive permits and then after apply, if
they still qualify, for permanent residency. It will not be automatic
for they will then be placed in back of the line of the 3.3 million
other would be immigrants in process. Because the reform does not
address this long waiting line, ahead are another 6 to 8 more years, of
course with permits, to obtain the coveted "Green Card". And further,
another five years to qualify for citizenship.
This hard reality can not be hidden. The 2.5 million that were left out
of the IRCA Amnesty of 1986 will have had a 42 year wait to vote. For
remembrance, with the 1986 legalization, the immigrant population
applied immediately and was given a one year permit for $150.00 and at
the end of that year, the applicant received the Residency Card. Five
years after, citizenship. . As simple as that.I know, our Esat L.A.
center processed over 10,000 applicants.
These and dozens of other reasons are why over four hundred national
organizations, including us the March 25 Coalition of Los Angeles and
San Diego, are campaigning to derail the draconian compromise. We
believe these bills are totally corporate designed to continue the
modern enslavement of the immigrant population. We definitely know the
millions the people, who marched and boycotted, did so, for full
legalization and family unity. Not for more border deaths, walls,
increased militarization or the criminalization of working people.
Interestingly, the NCLR gatherings showed the superficial depth of the
compromising faction in this historic movement. The LA March 25th one
million plus demonstration, the galvanization of the country's immigrant
population and the massive May 1st Gran Paro Americano/ The Great
American Boycott, were not mentioned period, zilt, in the compromiser's
presentations. And this campaigns, without a doubt, are both a People's
American Story. March 25th was hatched in three weeks, with a $15,000
budget and a much heralded but masterful media and political strategy.
All this in spite of the attempts to co-opt it, divide it, derail it,
clearly sabotaged by the SEIU and County Fed Pit Bulls, in addition to
the government and corporate funded immigrant rights organizations
mercenary "Media Consultants". This massive mobilization, the largest in
the history of this movement, made history and injected the immigrant
community and its allies unto the national scene as never before. Then
came April 10th -which directly was not ours, but by then we were
organizing the national boycott. Another first. And we shut down
Southern, Central and Northern California and many parts of the country.
Again, in spite of this gigantic grass roots efforts being "Scabbed
on", by all of the above, plus Cardinal Roger Mahoney, Mayor Antonio
Villaraigoza, Gov. Shwarzenneger, and President Bush, never the less, in
large and small cities, millions were mobilized. It was absolutely the
dream of "A Day without Immigrants" made a reality, a militant reality.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Lou Dobbs and immigrant bashing
Inter Press Service News Agency
Wednesday, July 05, 2006 21:27 GMT
POLITICS-US:
Lou Dobbs' Dubious Guest List
Bill Berkowitz*
OAKLAND, California, Jun 30 (IPS) - On the May 23 edition of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight", the generally affable talk-show host, who has become the network's go-to-guy on immigration issues, used a graphic provided by the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens to pound home his point about a racist anti-immigrant conspiracy theory.
During a piece about "illegal immigrants" in Utah, reporter Casey Wian pointed out that Utah was "part of the territory some militant Latino activists refer to as Aztlan, the portion of the southwest United States they claim rightfully belongs to Mexico."
As a backdrop for Wian's report, CNN ran a map of the United States with the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas browned out, and labeled "Aztlan".
Over the past several months -- perhaps as a response to a series of massive pro-immigrant demonstrations held in dozens of cities across the United States -- critics say that Dobbs has repeatedly crossed the line between fair-minded debate and fear-mongering.
"The problem with Lou Dobbs isn't so much that he puts people with connections to hate groups on his show without revealing those ties, or even that he seems to endorse racist conspiracy theories and describes anti-immigration vigilantes as 'great Americans,'" Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Centre told IPS.
"The problem is that Dobbs' unrelenting nativist propaganda is presented to the American public, in primetime and on the leading news channel in America, as actually being news. That's a sorry commentary on the state of the media and, in particular, reflects the Foxification of CNN," he said, referring to the network's conservative rival.
CNN did not respond to IPS requests for comment.
But Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a longtime media watchdog group, notes that Dobbs regularly stirs up anti-immigrant sentiment on his nightly programme.
"Dobbs' tone on immigration is consistently alarmist; he warns his viewers of Mexican immigrants who see themselves as an 'army of invaders' intent upon re-annexing parts of the Southwestern U.S. to Mexico, announces that 'illegal alien smugglers and drug traffickers are on the verge of ruining some of our national treasures,' and declares that 'the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans' through 'deadly imports' of diseases like leprosy and malaria," the group said.
In addition to hosting his own show, Dobbs has appeared on other CNN programmes, and he co-hosted -- along with the network's lead anchor, Wolf Blitzer -- the coverage of President George W. Bush's recent prime time speech on immigration.
Dobbs has been an aggressive supporter of "citizen border patrols" since the Minuteman Project's April 2005 "paramilitary effort to seal the Arizona border", Potok and his colleague, Heidi Beirich, reported in the Winter 2005 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Centre's Intelligence Report.
During the run-up to the Minuteman's first campaign, Dobbs gave the organisation "millions in free publicity, plugging it for weeks and turning over large segments of his air time to directly promoting the project," observed Marc Cooper, a contributing editor of The Nation magazine.
And while Dobbs still brings on guests that oppose his position, he continues to refuse "to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols," note Beirich and Potok.
The Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) Intelligence Report catalogued a number of occasions when Dobbs overlooked controversial statements, inflammatory websites, and white-supremacist connections of some of his anti-immigration guests.
Glenn Spencer, the head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the programme. His website contains "anti-Mexican vitriol" and he "pushes the idea that the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest".
Both the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League list Spencer's organisation as a hate group. Spencer has spoken at events sponsored by the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens and American Renaissance, a group that contends that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Spencer has also predicted that "thousands will die" in a supposedly forthcoming Mexican invasion.
Virginia Abernathy served as the head of the national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, the anti-immigration organisation that sponsored that state's anti-immigration referendum. Dobbs, who repeatedly reported on the measure, never mentioned that Abernathy was a long-time white supremacist and an editorial adviser to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens.
Last year, during a segment on the Minuteman Project, Joe McCutchen, who the SPLC reports heads an anti-immigration group called Protect Arkansas Now, and wrote a series of anti-Semitic letters to the editor and gave a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens, was quoted. Dobbs, who described the Minuteman Project as "a terrific group of concerned, caring Americans", made no mention of McCutchen's connections to white supremacist groups.
On Oct. 4, Dobbs hosted Paul Streitz, a co-founder of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, on his programme.
"Streitz denounced Mayor John DeStefano Jr. for 'turning New Haven into a banana republic' by favouring identification cards for undocumented workers. Two days later, newspapers revealed that two of the group's other founders had just quit, saying Streitz had led it in a racially charged direction. Dobbs has never reported this," say Potok and Beirich.
Barbara Coe, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, was quoted on a show last March bitterly attacking the retail chain Home Depot for "betray[ing] Americans", mainly due to the fact that "Hispanic day laborers often gather in front of the store looking for work." Dobbs never reported that her group is listed as a hate group by the SPLC, "or the fact that she routinely refers to Mexicans as 'savages.'"
It isn't everyday that the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) is cited as a source by CNN, or any other credible news outlet for that matter. Therefore, it was surprising that Dobbs trucked out the CCC-sourced graphic to illustrate the Aztlan conspiracy theory.
The CCC, which had its 15 minutes of fame a few years back when it was revealed that Republican Senator Trent Lott had a long-term relationship with the group, prefers to keep a relatively low profile.
The organisation was founded in the mid-1990s as an outgrowth of the Citizens Councils of America -- groups formed in the mid-1950s as part of a white segregationist response to federally mandated integration of public facilities.
Leonard Zeskind, an author who has researched white supremacist groups for more than a quarter of a century, has observed that the CCC had "a several-year track record of successfully marrying the white supremacist fringe types with local and state Republican politicians and thereby having an influence in the mainstream discourse."
Dobbs, revered in anti-immigration quarters, won the 2004 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration, given by the Centre for Immigration Studies, an organisation that SPLC says claims to be a nonpartisan research institute, "but in fact is a thinly disguised anti-immigration organisation".
On May 25, the St. Louis CCC Blog posted a shout out to Dobbs, discovered by The Huffington Post's Alex Koppelman. Under the "Welcome Lou Dobbs" headline, the text read: "I knew you were one of us all along. Also, thanks for the proper citation, on CNN, no less."
*Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange column "Conservative Watch" documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the U.S. Right. (FIN/2006)
Contact Us | About Us | Subscription | Help us Improve | News in RSS
Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006 21:27 GMT
POLITICS-US:
Lou Dobbs' Dubious Guest List
Bill Berkowitz*
OAKLAND, California, Jun 30 (IPS) - On the May 23 edition of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight", the generally affable talk-show host, who has become the network's go-to-guy on immigration issues, used a graphic provided by the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens to pound home his point about a racist anti-immigrant conspiracy theory.
During a piece about "illegal immigrants" in Utah, reporter Casey Wian pointed out that Utah was "part of the territory some militant Latino activists refer to as Aztlan, the portion of the southwest United States they claim rightfully belongs to Mexico."
As a backdrop for Wian's report, CNN ran a map of the United States with the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas browned out, and labeled "Aztlan".
Over the past several months -- perhaps as a response to a series of massive pro-immigrant demonstrations held in dozens of cities across the United States -- critics say that Dobbs has repeatedly crossed the line between fair-minded debate and fear-mongering.
"The problem with Lou Dobbs isn't so much that he puts people with connections to hate groups on his show without revealing those ties, or even that he seems to endorse racist conspiracy theories and describes anti-immigration vigilantes as 'great Americans,'" Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Centre told IPS.
"The problem is that Dobbs' unrelenting nativist propaganda is presented to the American public, in primetime and on the leading news channel in America, as actually being news. That's a sorry commentary on the state of the media and, in particular, reflects the Foxification of CNN," he said, referring to the network's conservative rival.
CNN did not respond to IPS requests for comment.
But Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a longtime media watchdog group, notes that Dobbs regularly stirs up anti-immigrant sentiment on his nightly programme.
"Dobbs' tone on immigration is consistently alarmist; he warns his viewers of Mexican immigrants who see themselves as an 'army of invaders' intent upon re-annexing parts of the Southwestern U.S. to Mexico, announces that 'illegal alien smugglers and drug traffickers are on the verge of ruining some of our national treasures,' and declares that 'the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans' through 'deadly imports' of diseases like leprosy and malaria," the group said.
In addition to hosting his own show, Dobbs has appeared on other CNN programmes, and he co-hosted -- along with the network's lead anchor, Wolf Blitzer -- the coverage of President George W. Bush's recent prime time speech on immigration.
Dobbs has been an aggressive supporter of "citizen border patrols" since the Minuteman Project's April 2005 "paramilitary effort to seal the Arizona border", Potok and his colleague, Heidi Beirich, reported in the Winter 2005 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Centre's Intelligence Report.
During the run-up to the Minuteman's first campaign, Dobbs gave the organisation "millions in free publicity, plugging it for weeks and turning over large segments of his air time to directly promoting the project," observed Marc Cooper, a contributing editor of The Nation magazine.
And while Dobbs still brings on guests that oppose his position, he continues to refuse "to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols," note Beirich and Potok.
The Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) Intelligence Report catalogued a number of occasions when Dobbs overlooked controversial statements, inflammatory websites, and white-supremacist connections of some of his anti-immigration guests.
Glenn Spencer, the head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the programme. His website contains "anti-Mexican vitriol" and he "pushes the idea that the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest".
Both the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League list Spencer's organisation as a hate group. Spencer has spoken at events sponsored by the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens and American Renaissance, a group that contends that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Spencer has also predicted that "thousands will die" in a supposedly forthcoming Mexican invasion.
Virginia Abernathy served as the head of the national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, the anti-immigration organisation that sponsored that state's anti-immigration referendum. Dobbs, who repeatedly reported on the measure, never mentioned that Abernathy was a long-time white supremacist and an editorial adviser to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens.
Last year, during a segment on the Minuteman Project, Joe McCutchen, who the SPLC reports heads an anti-immigration group called Protect Arkansas Now, and wrote a series of anti-Semitic letters to the editor and gave a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens, was quoted. Dobbs, who described the Minuteman Project as "a terrific group of concerned, caring Americans", made no mention of McCutchen's connections to white supremacist groups.
On Oct. 4, Dobbs hosted Paul Streitz, a co-founder of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, on his programme.
"Streitz denounced Mayor John DeStefano Jr. for 'turning New Haven into a banana republic' by favouring identification cards for undocumented workers. Two days later, newspapers revealed that two of the group's other founders had just quit, saying Streitz had led it in a racially charged direction. Dobbs has never reported this," say Potok and Beirich.
Barbara Coe, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, was quoted on a show last March bitterly attacking the retail chain Home Depot for "betray[ing] Americans", mainly due to the fact that "Hispanic day laborers often gather in front of the store looking for work." Dobbs never reported that her group is listed as a hate group by the SPLC, "or the fact that she routinely refers to Mexicans as 'savages.'"
It isn't everyday that the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) is cited as a source by CNN, or any other credible news outlet for that matter. Therefore, it was surprising that Dobbs trucked out the CCC-sourced graphic to illustrate the Aztlan conspiracy theory.
The CCC, which had its 15 minutes of fame a few years back when it was revealed that Republican Senator Trent Lott had a long-term relationship with the group, prefers to keep a relatively low profile.
The organisation was founded in the mid-1990s as an outgrowth of the Citizens Councils of America -- groups formed in the mid-1950s as part of a white segregationist response to federally mandated integration of public facilities.
Leonard Zeskind, an author who has researched white supremacist groups for more than a quarter of a century, has observed that the CCC had "a several-year track record of successfully marrying the white supremacist fringe types with local and state Republican politicians and thereby having an influence in the mainstream discourse."
Dobbs, revered in anti-immigration quarters, won the 2004 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration, given by the Centre for Immigration Studies, an organisation that SPLC says claims to be a nonpartisan research institute, "but in fact is a thinly disguised anti-immigration organisation".
On May 25, the St. Louis CCC Blog posted a shout out to Dobbs, discovered by The Huffington Post's Alex Koppelman. Under the "Welcome Lou Dobbs" headline, the text read: "I knew you were one of us all along. Also, thanks for the proper citation, on CNN, no less."
*Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange column "Conservative Watch" documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the U.S. Right. (FIN/2006)
Contact Us | About Us | Subscription | Help us Improve | News in RSS
Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
Mexican elections : July 4 Delegation report
Just a few points- since we still don't have a lot of data.
1. An overwhelming majority of Mexicans voted against the failed policies of the Fox Administration. 6 years ago, Fox won with 42% of the vote; right now Calderon is holding at 36% and would have no mandate if he's the victor.
2. While historically, the PRI was the only national party, the PAN is ahead of the PRD in becoming one. Although the PRD was very proud that it had managed to appoint party pollwatchers in 96%of the 130,000 polling places (casillas).
3. While there is a general north/south divide in the results, it appears the PAN came in first in two southern states, and the PRD came in first in 3 northern states.
4. The PRI failed to come in first in a single state, even though it still controls the governorships in 17.
5. The IFE did a good job in setting up the actual balloting structure (Although, I'm going by US Standards and maybe the Palm Beach County bar is set too low.) Only 8 casillas failed to open at all. Their major screwup was sending only 480,000 ballots to the special casillas for people traveling out of their home county on Sunday. The IFE underestimated the transitory nature of this nation of 100 million and the specials ran out of ballots very early and couldn't get more. It appears that perhaps 200,000 to 400,000 voters were disenfranchised.
6. The Congress faces a massive change. The Chamber of Deputies sees the PRI drop from 203 to a likely 110; the PAN goes from 148 to over 210; and the PRD goes from 97 to over 160. In the Senate (where half the seats were up) the PRI looks to drop from 58 to 35; the PAN goes from 47 to maybe 54; and the PRD goes from 15 to 37. Even with the expectation that the PRI "technos" vote with the PAN, it is a very different Congress, as some of the PRI are likely to break from their near powerless cacus and vote with PRD proposals.
We'll have more analysis later.
Skip Roberts
Washington, DC
1. An overwhelming majority of Mexicans voted against the failed policies of the Fox Administration. 6 years ago, Fox won with 42% of the vote; right now Calderon is holding at 36% and would have no mandate if he's the victor.
2. While historically, the PRI was the only national party, the PAN is ahead of the PRD in becoming one. Although the PRD was very proud that it had managed to appoint party pollwatchers in 96%of the 130,000 polling places (casillas).
3. While there is a general north/south divide in the results, it appears the PAN came in first in two southern states, and the PRD came in first in 3 northern states.
4. The PRI failed to come in first in a single state, even though it still controls the governorships in 17.
5. The IFE did a good job in setting up the actual balloting structure (Although, I'm going by US Standards and maybe the Palm Beach County bar is set too low.) Only 8 casillas failed to open at all. Their major screwup was sending only 480,000 ballots to the special casillas for people traveling out of their home county on Sunday. The IFE underestimated the transitory nature of this nation of 100 million and the specials ran out of ballots very early and couldn't get more. It appears that perhaps 200,000 to 400,000 voters were disenfranchised.
6. The Congress faces a massive change. The Chamber of Deputies sees the PRI drop from 203 to a likely 110; the PAN goes from 148 to over 210; and the PRD goes from 97 to over 160. In the Senate (where half the seats were up) the PRI looks to drop from 58 to 35; the PAN goes from 47 to maybe 54; and the PRD goes from 15 to 37. Even with the expectation that the PRI "technos" vote with the PAN, it is a very different Congress, as some of the PRI are likely to break from their near powerless cacus and vote with PRD proposals.
We'll have more analysis later.
Skip Roberts
Washington, DC
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Mexican election dispute
Election in Dispute, Mexico Braces for Violence
by John Ross
Mexico City
When US voters consider electoral fraud, George W. Bush's questionable victories
in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 are paradigms of a stolen election. But
here the reference point is the presidential election of 1988 when, on election
night, government officials announced that the "system has fallen," alluding to
the alleged crash of vote-tabulating computers. When the "system" came back up
after a ten-day ellipse, Harvard-educated neo-liberal and fair-trader Carlos
Salinas de Gortari, the candidate of the long-ruling Institutional
Revolutionary Party (PRI), was declared the winner over leftist Cuauhtemoc
Cardenas. Few believed the results and hundreds of Cardenas supporters were
killed in the political violence and street protests that followed.
On Monday, the Mexican electoral system did not collapse--it simply went to
sleep. In a dramatic pronouncement near midnight, Federal Electoral Institute
President Luis Carlos Ugalde called the preliminary count too close to call and
declared that no further results would be available until Wednesday at the
earliest--and perhaps for many weeks to come.
Under the PRI's seven-decade reign, the period between election day and the
official declaration of a winner--always a member of the PRI--was utilized to
cook the final results. Now under the right-wing National Action Party (PAN)
and with outgoing president Vicente Fox calling the shots, the abuse of state
power is once again evident.
Sunday's presidential balloting was perhaps the most consequential election
since the 1910 Mexican revolution. Felipe Calderon, Fox's would-be successor,
stands with the fat cats. His leftist opponent, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador,
often referred to by his initials AMLO, is an unabashed champion of the poor.
Calderon is a fervent believer in neo-liberal globalization and advances
policies that would deepen Mexico's political and economic servility to
Washington.
Lopez Obrador is demanding renegotiation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement and seeks to strengthen Mexico's ties to Latin America where leftists
in various shades now govern much of the continent--a scenario that Washington
has sought to avoid at all cost. Lopez Obrador is perhaps more ideologically
aligned with Chile's Michelle Bachelet, a free-market "socialist", than he is
with Venezuelan firebrand Hugo Chavez, as Calderon and the PAN have often
charged.
Even since Lopez Obrador became the front-runner for the presidency in 2006
three years ago, Fox and his accomplices in the PRI (which ran a dismal third
July 2) have tried to disqualify his candidacy and have even sought to bar him
from the ballot; the campaign was dropped after Lopez Obrador put a million
protestors into the streets of Mexico City, a megalopolis of which he was a
wildly popular mayor. Similarly, the Federal Election Institute has exhibited
a striking bias against Lopez Obrador and favored the PAN's Felipe Calderon in
one decision after another. Mexico's two-headed television and radio
monopoly--Televisa and TV Azteca--have tilted towards Calderon from the onset
of the campaign, transmitting the message that Lopez Obrador is a danger to
Mexico in nightly newscasts and an array of "Get AMLO" spots designed by such
carpetbaggers as Fox News comentator Dick Morris and Antonio Sola, hit man for
Spain's former right-wing prime minister Jose Maria Aznar.
Nonetheless, Lopez Obrador went into Election Day with a small lead in reputable
polls; exit polling seems to have confirmed a slender victory, although the
Federal Electoral Institute has been reluctant to discuss the numbers. Whether
Fox, the Electoral Institute and their handlers in Washington will accept Lopez
Obrador's victory is what is likely being discussed behind locked doors at Los
Pinos, Mexico's White House, and the US Embassy on Paseo de Reforma here in
downtown Mexico City.
The similarities to 1988 are positively eerie. On election night, tens of
thousands of Lopez Obrador's supporters gathered in the dark on the great
Zocalo plaza and remembered that terrible time. "Fraude electoral!" they
chanted over and over again and AMLO himself pledged that 2006 would not be a
replay of 1988.
While Fox, the PAN and the business and political classes call for Mexicans to
remain calm until the results are finally known, Lopez Obrador will not have an
easy time containing his supporters if Calderon is declared the winner. On the
morning after Sunday's election, a US reporter out for coffee in the old
quarter of this city spoke with a hotel handyman, a local street sweeper, a
newspaper vender, a cab driver, and two senior citizens like himself. All of
them, with more or less vehemence, considered the election to have been stolen.
"They won't get away with it this time--this isn't 1988," an elderly gentleman
in a straw sombrero rumbled while wolfing down breakfast at the Cafe La Blanca.
Or will they? After the election was stolen from Cardenas in 1988, hundreds of
his followers were gunned down by PRI pistoleros. On election eve 2006, two PRD
poll watchers were shot and killed in conflict-ridden Guerrero state in what
public officials called an "attempted robbery." That is exactly the way the
killing began in 1988.
This article can be found on the web at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/ross
by John Ross
Mexico City
When US voters consider electoral fraud, George W. Bush's questionable victories
in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 are paradigms of a stolen election. But
here the reference point is the presidential election of 1988 when, on election
night, government officials announced that the "system has fallen," alluding to
the alleged crash of vote-tabulating computers. When the "system" came back up
after a ten-day ellipse, Harvard-educated neo-liberal and fair-trader Carlos
Salinas de Gortari, the candidate of the long-ruling Institutional
Revolutionary Party (PRI), was declared the winner over leftist Cuauhtemoc
Cardenas. Few believed the results and hundreds of Cardenas supporters were
killed in the political violence and street protests that followed.
On Monday, the Mexican electoral system did not collapse--it simply went to
sleep. In a dramatic pronouncement near midnight, Federal Electoral Institute
President Luis Carlos Ugalde called the preliminary count too close to call and
declared that no further results would be available until Wednesday at the
earliest--and perhaps for many weeks to come.
Under the PRI's seven-decade reign, the period between election day and the
official declaration of a winner--always a member of the PRI--was utilized to
cook the final results. Now under the right-wing National Action Party (PAN)
and with outgoing president Vicente Fox calling the shots, the abuse of state
power is once again evident.
Sunday's presidential balloting was perhaps the most consequential election
since the 1910 Mexican revolution. Felipe Calderon, Fox's would-be successor,
stands with the fat cats. His leftist opponent, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador,
often referred to by his initials AMLO, is an unabashed champion of the poor.
Calderon is a fervent believer in neo-liberal globalization and advances
policies that would deepen Mexico's political and economic servility to
Washington.
Lopez Obrador is demanding renegotiation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement and seeks to strengthen Mexico's ties to Latin America where leftists
in various shades now govern much of the continent--a scenario that Washington
has sought to avoid at all cost. Lopez Obrador is perhaps more ideologically
aligned with Chile's Michelle Bachelet, a free-market "socialist", than he is
with Venezuelan firebrand Hugo Chavez, as Calderon and the PAN have often
charged.
Even since Lopez Obrador became the front-runner for the presidency in 2006
three years ago, Fox and his accomplices in the PRI (which ran a dismal third
July 2) have tried to disqualify his candidacy and have even sought to bar him
from the ballot; the campaign was dropped after Lopez Obrador put a million
protestors into the streets of Mexico City, a megalopolis of which he was a
wildly popular mayor. Similarly, the Federal Election Institute has exhibited
a striking bias against Lopez Obrador and favored the PAN's Felipe Calderon in
one decision after another. Mexico's two-headed television and radio
monopoly--Televisa and TV Azteca--have tilted towards Calderon from the onset
of the campaign, transmitting the message that Lopez Obrador is a danger to
Mexico in nightly newscasts and an array of "Get AMLO" spots designed by such
carpetbaggers as Fox News comentator Dick Morris and Antonio Sola, hit man for
Spain's former right-wing prime minister Jose Maria Aznar.
Nonetheless, Lopez Obrador went into Election Day with a small lead in reputable
polls; exit polling seems to have confirmed a slender victory, although the
Federal Electoral Institute has been reluctant to discuss the numbers. Whether
Fox, the Electoral Institute and their handlers in Washington will accept Lopez
Obrador's victory is what is likely being discussed behind locked doors at Los
Pinos, Mexico's White House, and the US Embassy on Paseo de Reforma here in
downtown Mexico City.
The similarities to 1988 are positively eerie. On election night, tens of
thousands of Lopez Obrador's supporters gathered in the dark on the great
Zocalo plaza and remembered that terrible time. "Fraude electoral!" they
chanted over and over again and AMLO himself pledged that 2006 would not be a
replay of 1988.
While Fox, the PAN and the business and political classes call for Mexicans to
remain calm until the results are finally known, Lopez Obrador will not have an
easy time containing his supporters if Calderon is declared the winner. On the
morning after Sunday's election, a US reporter out for coffee in the old
quarter of this city spoke with a hotel handyman, a local street sweeper, a
newspaper vender, a cab driver, and two senior citizens like himself. All of
them, with more or less vehemence, considered the election to have been stolen.
"They won't get away with it this time--this isn't 1988," an elderly gentleman
in a straw sombrero rumbled while wolfing down breakfast at the Cafe La Blanca.
Or will they? After the election was stolen from Cardenas in 1988, hundreds of
his followers were gunned down by PRI pistoleros. On election eve 2006, two PRD
poll watchers were shot and killed in conflict-ridden Guerrero state in what
public officials called an "attempted robbery." That is exactly the way the
killing began in 1988.
This article can be found on the web at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/ross
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)