What Did Assad’s Allies Do in Two Weeks?

People protest against a US military intervention in Syria in front of the Cannon House Office Building near the US Capitol in Washington on 9 September 2013. (Photo: AFP - Nicholas Kamm)

By: Ibrahim al-Amin

Published Tuesday, September 10, 2013

It was the British House of Commons that first opened the way for what became a retreat from the brink of war. Suddenly, public opinion entered the calculations of Western governments, which quickly led to a search for an exit for the White House. As soon as Barack Obama put the matter up before Congress, it was clear that he was looking for some sort of compromise.

All that was left was to find something that Washington can go to its Arab and European allies with and tell them, “See, this is what I got for not waging a war on Syria.”

The Russians saw their opportunity to make a move. They needed to come up with something that would not look like a defeat for the US, while at the same time wouldn’t make Damascus look like it is backing down completely. So they came up with the idea of neutralizing Syria’s chemical arsenal by placing it under international supervision.

The Russian initiative will likely usher in what appears to be only a temporary settlement, postponing the attack, rather than canceling it altogether. But even this requires quite a bit of discussion in order to see the light of day, and as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

The Israeli plan in effect seeks a replay of the Iraq scenario, in which weapons inspectors were asked to look in every nook and cranny, including Saddam Hussein’s private palaces, until the US was ready to attack.

And what was leaked by the Israeli media about a Tel Aviv plan, advising Obama to drag out the negotiations, suggests that this will be nothing more than a short respite, until the opportunity presents itself at a later date to strike. By then perhaps, the right conditions will be in place to wage a war under more favorable circumstances.

The Israeli plan in effect seeks a replay of the Iraq scenario, in which weapons inspectors were asked to look in every nook and cranny, including Saddam Hussein’s private palaces, until the US was ready to attack. In Syria’s case, the Americans could use the excuse of having failed to reach a final agreement based on the Russian initiative as an excuse to wage a far broader assault on Damascus than what was planned this time around.

But what about the other side? How does it appraise the situation? And what is it planning for any future confrontation?

No one needs to tell Syria’s allies that Washington no longer possesses complete freedom to do as it pleases, particularly compared to a decade or so ago, before getting bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also know that America’s recent setbacks have produced a regional and international opposition alliance that brings together powerful forces that continue to grow by the day.

This opposition alliance operates on a number of levels: Russia playing a diplomatic role, while Iran is prepared to take the lead militarily, if it comes to a regional confrontation with the US. Tehran is not only capable of facing down Washington in Syria and the surrounding area, but it has the ability to cause them serious harm.

In two short weeks, this alliance succeeded in mobilizing a broad military front that is prepared to engage in an extended war that could last for months or more, opening up many new opportunities that were not previously available and making it possible for this alliance to confront any Western attack, without submitting to the aggressors’ timeframe, geography or scale.

Ibrahim al-Amin is editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Mis Fotogramas de Chavez.

Mis fotogramas de Chávez

Te conocí aquella noche en el aeropuerto José Martí, cuando bajaste las escalerillas del  avión que te traía de Caracas, con tu esbelta figura, y tu ropa impecable con cuellito chino. Allí estaba Fidel para darte la bienvenida, algo que no entendí en aquel momento, pero hizo a mi foto portada de Granma.

Después fui con mi lente al Aula Magna de la Universidad de La Habana, donde pronunciaste un gran discurso.  A mi regreso al hogar le comenté a mi padre: “Este hombre, o es un gran farsante, o será un grande de Nuestra América”.

Unos meses después, recibí en mi casa a dos venezolanos que tenían su cámara rota, y me hablaron de Chávez, el hombre del golpe a Carlos Andrés Pérez. Ellos me explicaron algunas cosas y comencé a entender por qué la presencia de Fidel aquella noche de tu primera llegada a La Habana.

En noviembre de 1997, viajé a Caracas, en pleno apogeo electoral, y te vi de nuevo en el televisor, en un debate presidencial. Recuerdo tu discurso humilde, sincero, quizás de pocas aspiraciones, pero pidiéndole a los que se abstenían a votar que lo hicieran por ti. No querías Adecos, tampoco Copeyanos: querías venezolanos.

Luego, supe que eras presidente  y reconozco mi sorpresa. Me sentí feliz. Ya era tu admirador, ya me había seducido tu sonrisa. No solo eras mi esperanza, la de Venezuela; sino la de América.  Sufrí  tus llegadas al aeropuerto de La Habana, donde no se respetaba protocolo alguno y en más de una ocasión me fui sin foto, pues el alboroto de gente alrededor tuyo y de Fidel era tal que no se veía nada.

“¡Fidel!”, así gritaste en el Lobby del hotel Presidente de México, aquella noche del 2 de diciembre del año 2000, cuando un mariachi le cantaba a Cuba y a su Revolución. No quisiste quedar fuera de la celebración, y justo en la puerta del ascensor de aquel hotel charlaste y bromeaste de manera única, por más de una hora, junto a Fidel. Y yo, a tu lado. Recuerdo que hasta conseguiste que nuestro Comandante tarareara el estribillo de una canción.

No se me olvida el acto por el primer aniversario del Alba, en la Plaza de la Revolución. Después de mucho batallar, logré una buena foto de Fidel, Evo y tú enarbolando banderitas y sonriéndole al mundo. Una imagen para la historia, una imagen que conservo en mis recuerdos.

Nos vimos también en Mar del Plata, en el estadio mundialista en aquel acto previo a la Cumbre de las Américas, donde mandaste el ALCA ¡Alcarajo! Tremendo frió en aquel multitudinario acto, junto a Silvio, Evo y Maradona. Tú, como siempre, espontáneo: te pusiste la gorra de un pionero cubano, justo para hacer mis fotos diferentes. No pudo aquella
tarde de  frío contener el entusiasmo y el calor humano de los miles de revolucionarios latinoamericanos allí reunidos, quienes dimos el mayor puntapié de la historia al señor Bush.

Otro día glorioso lo vivimos juntos en Santa Clara, te esperé encima de un camión y fui delante de tu caravana. Tomé fotos del recibimiento que te dio el pueblo, hasta llegar a la Plaza, donde saludaste al Che, y me arrodillé ante ti, para poder hacer una instantánea con los dos.

Sinceramente me estremecí. Después, a tus espaldas,  tomé la foto cuando le depositaste la flor al Guerrillero Heroico.
Al día siguiente de tu histórico Aló Presidente desde la Plaza del Che, ya en La Habana, en el Palacio de Convenciones, tu prensa presidencial miraba mi trabajo en el diario Granma, mientras Marcelo, uno de tus fotógrafos, me dijo: “¿Tú eres Ismael?: Felicidades por las buenas fotos”.

Cuando supe la noticia de tu secuestro estaba en Moa. Había un campeonato de Softbol. Seguí por las televisoras extranjeras cada paso de aquel suceso en el que te involucraron. Simplemente no quería creerlo, quería pensar que era una farsa mediática más. Sentí tanto orgullo al verte regresar al Palacio Miraflores; que creo no se lo dije a nadie. El mismo palacio que conocí en 1997, cuando fui retenido por tirarle fotos a la Casa de Gobierno. Eran épocas de presidente
Calderas.

Nunca viajé a Venezuela durante tus mandatos; nunca hasta después de saber de tu enfermedad. Siempre confié en la Ciencia y los médicos cubanos que te ayudarían a superarla; y también en tu Dios, ese que tanto invocaste, y que hice mío por tu salud.

Llegó el día en que me dijeron “Prepara viaje”, pero sin decirme a dónde. Aquel misterio y tu presencia en Cuba para operarte por primera vez, me hizo pensar de inmediato que mi viaje tendría alguna relación contigo. Y así fue. Era para acompañarte de regreso a tu Patria y que participaras en los actos conmemorativos por el  aniversario 200 de la Liberación de Venezuela, con apenas cinco días de haber sido intervenido quirúrgicamente.

Recuerdo tu llegada al Aeropuerto acompañado de Raúl. Cuando bajaste con dificultad del auto, cuando extendiste tu mano para saludar al equipo de prensa; entre ellos, Omar de La Cruz, Gladys Rubio y yo. Fue la primera vez que  intercambiamos un saludo en el que jocosamente le dijiste a Raúl que yo estaba gordo. No dudo que ambos me sacaron los colores en aquella media noche de tu silencioso regreso a la Patria de Bolívar.

En aquel entonces, tus fotos recorrerían el mundo. Todavía yo no tenía plena conciencia de lo que estaba haciendo. Al subir, nos diste las intrusiones precisas para lo que haríamos al llegar a Caracas, que sería a las 3 de la madrugada.

Ya en tu tierra, te sentí feliz y fuerte. Desde allí logré fotos que calaron hondo a mis amigos. En aquella oportunidad festejaste el triunfo de la Vino Tinto en el fútbol. Trabajé mis fotos, las miraste, se copiaron en CD y fueron puestas a disposición del mundo a las 7 de la mañana. Nadie sabía en Venezuela que Chávez estaba nuevamente en la Patria de Bolívar.

Al salir del aeropuerto de Maiquetía rumbo a Caracas, me sorprendió un amanecer tan bello como tu regreso, lo tengo aún conmigo, por esa suerte que tenemos los fotógrafos de llevar la historia a nuestra casa, sea de donde sea.

No volví a verte, no volví a fotografiarte, aunque estuve siempre atento a tus noticias y a tu salud. Me gustó verte bajo la lluvia defendiendo la unidad de tu Revolución días antes de las elecciones. Fue así que lamenté, profundamente, no estar  a tu lado.

En julio, mientras jugaba softbol en Ciego de Ávila, me asignaron para trabajar con una de tus hijas. Cumplí la tarea de enviarte día a día las fotos a la capital, mientras te dabas tratamientos de quimioterapia. Te aseguro que puse el alma en cada imagen, para ayudar a tu recuperación desde mi humilde trinchera: mi cámara.

Confieso que tus palabras pidiendo la unidad y recomendando a Maduro las tareas por venir, me apretaron el alma. Después, ya en Cuba, volví a confiar en tu Dios, en mi Dios, en nuestros médicos, en lo justo de la vida, y de las palabras de Fidel, el día de las elecciones, cunado dijo que estabas bien en aquel mensaje que me dio tranquilidad.

De visita en Bayamo, en casa de mi familia supe la noticia de tu regreso. Miré a mi padre y, como siempre, con la dureza de la sinceridad le dije: “Viejo, yo creo que ha regresado para morir en Venezuela”. Y confesé: “No te volveré a ver, Comandante”, seguro de que tu espíritu y tu imagen me acompañarán siempre, porque tengo la suerte de, como profesional del lente, mirar diferente, de llevarte en la mente cuadro a cuadro, instante a instante.

Hoy cuando escucho declaraciones, comentarios y opiniones, las que coinciden en que “estés donde estés estaremos contigo”, yo les afirmo que sé dónde estás, no tengo la menor de las dudas: estás en el corazón de millones de hombres y mujeres de buena voluntad de este planeta, y por eso vivirás siempre.

A ti te agradezco, Comandante, pues sin tú saberlo, y con mucha humildad, me hiciste un ser humano diferente.

Gracias, Chávez.

Chávez. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez junto a Silvio y Amaury Pérez. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez y Diego Maradona. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez y Raúl. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez, Fidel y Evo. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez y Fidel. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

En Santa Clara junto al Monumento del Che. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez hablando en La Habana. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez en Santa Clara. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

Chávez en el Mausoleo del Che, Santa Clara. Foto: Ismael Francisco/Cubadebate.

A Democratic Display in the Center of the World

Rafael Correa, An Anti-Obama in Ecuador?

by ADAM CHIMIENTI AND CARMEN L. ARIAS

Latin American elections always seem to get it these days. Western journalists cannot deny an opportunity to pass without throwing some stones. So it was hardly surprising when the words “dictator”(Reuters, BBC) and “handouts”(USA Today, CBS News) were thrown into the hastily assembled reports on the election in “tiny”, read: insignificant,[i] Ecuador and the results turned out to be heavily in favor of the “anti-American” candidate.

It’s interesting to look at each of these terms to see the duplicitous nature of Western reporting. For example, the word dictator should hardly apply to Rafael Correa, the Ecuadorian President comfortably reelected. That is unless you enjoy the use of hyperbole for dramatic effect. As they say, if it bleeds… and Latin American blood is always especially crimson in the grey of the New York Times and its counterparts. Except President Correa in Ecuador has killed no one. He has started zero wars, tortured or killed zero citizens, and while he may have a “pugnacious” (Reuters again) attitude how else could one realistically expect a politician to survive in the 21st century.

Here’s what you need to know. Rafael Correa was a nobody on the political scene in Ecuador when George W. Bush was being inaugurated for the second time in Washington 8 years ago. I know. It’s not polite to bring up such ugly episodes in US history but allow me to refresh your memory for a second. Bush just beat the current Secretary of State John Kerry in the November election and presumed he had a mandate. He was talking about going after Social Security. The left, right and center were paying close attention. It turns out though, that Bush’s victory was an incredibly narrow one, with allegations of strange occurrences in Ohio, people being forced to wait in line for hours around the country and corporations spending ever more on getting their representatives elected.[ii] All in all, the result was a US democracy looking less and less like an established fact, and more and more like some kind of disturbing case of regression back into the “good old days” of black, brown, poor, and those with some form of exploitable vulnerability being prevented from voting because they were black, brown, poor or vulnerable. No matter though. Both Kerry and Bush were rather familiar politicians, both extremely wealthy, both went to Yale and both even played in the same dark dungeons there.[iii] How nice!

Meanwhile, Rafael Correa was a nobody on the Ecuadorian political scene back then. Journalists would have found no reason to write about him, negatively or otherwise. Then, the Ecuadorian people had grown tired of dirty politics and politicians once and for all it seemed. Various social groups came together including natives from the highlands and lowlands and leftists who were inspired by Chavez in Venezuela, Lula in Brazil, Kirchner in Argentina, and Morales in Bolivia. They decided to throw out a president they called Sucio (Dirty) Lucio. Lucio Gutierrez was an alright guy in their eyes back in the year 2000 when he was in military fatigues and had decided to lend his hand to the social movements that were stirred up by a terrible economic crisis that featured dollarization of the economy. If you live in the US and wondered what happened to all your dirty old dollar bills, then dollarization could help you understand.

In 1999, the country was told by economists from the US and those benevolent monetary institutions, the IMF and World Bank, that its sucre currency was especially filthy lucre and needed to be thrown out. In turn, they could start using the US dollar and be happier for it. One problem though was that anyone with any small amount of savings in the bank were practically wiped out. So along came Sucio Lucio with some supporters behind him, ready to say ¡Ya Basta! but it turned out that he was only playing nice. Actually, Sucio Lucio was destined for bigger and better things than low or highland “Indians”. He had a date with George W. from Yale. How exciting!

Eventually, the people of Ecuador were stirred up once again and decided to take to the streets one more time. The legislature would have to take decisive action. The rest, as they say, is history. Lucio Gutierrez would be removed from office, albeit in a very civilized way, and his vice President Alfredo Palacio would take over. The man who would temporarily be in charge of the government in Quito was a medical doctor by trade. He would reportedly told BBC Journalist Greg Palast, our former boss, that if the IMF really made the Andean country pay the debt they said Ecuador owed, then they would not survive. This story isn’t about him though. It’s about the colorful and confident, if not pugnacious, finance minister he chose for a brief stint in 2005. This man subscribed to the views of Ha Joon Chang and other heterodox economists who pointed out that the West was “kicking away the ladder” when it came to advice on how to run an economy. His name was Rafael Correa!

Correa would then go on to run for president himself and surprise everyone by whipping the ever-persistent banana magnate and #1 wealthiest man in the country. Alvaro Noboa is the man behind Bonita bananas and he believed Ecuador should proudly continue in the path of the banana republicanism that it was known for. He felt so strongly about this that he was to run for president five times and not be deterred by his lack of success.[iv] Correa disagreed and so did the Ecuadorian people. The West was, wait for it now, flabbergasted. How could this be? Oh, that’s right! It was because Latin Americans like to elect populists who in turn like to screw up economies, and then who like to head for Miami or Zurich or some other safe haven. So the story goes.

Correa was not your typical populist in the sense that he actually knew a bit about what he was doing. He had studied in the US but he didn’t leave with tears in eyes, saying he’ll never forget those wonderful Yankees. He came back home like many Ecuadorians would love to do, and he did so with a plan. [Note: the country’s economy has been tragically dependent on remissions, with Ecuadorian migrants propping up the likes of Western Union and filling the squares of Madrid, Rome and other European cities on Sunday to celebrate their only day off.]

Correa’s plan was to save the economy of Ecuador by putting into place the economic programs so rarely enacted but superior in every way to the IMF Structural Adjustment Plans (SAPs) that economists love to talk about. There would be no more borrowing to pay off loans. There would be no more privatizing to place premiums on necessities such as water, electricity, gas and oil. Correa would reverse course and, six years later, Ecuador is celebrating their democracy with pride. While I do not wish to be overzealous and depict a knight in shining armour, most of the people are very happy with their president. They respect him and they even care about politics with him at the helm. This includes young and the old, the poor and the middle class, the black, brown and white.

I know. You’re thinking I’ve heard all this before. Obama was standing in DC reciting his passionate inaugural speech only weeks ago. Tears, though not as many as in 2008, were flowing and Obama supporters were saying it was time to get busy. Electoral politics is a sham but let’s give the Ecuadorian people and the government some credit here. The election appeared well-organized and peaceful. The winner was an incumbent with a plan to continue to try to revitalize the economy by giving ordinary everyday people a chance at living a life devoid of the desperation that comes with deep impoverishment. They are investing in social programs like healthcare, education, grassroots cooperatives, and even trying to mitigate serious environmental problems. In an article in The Guardian, the Indian economist Jayati Ghosh has called Ecuador the most radical and exciting place on earth as a result.[v]

Since Correa first took office in early 2007, he got a lot of interesting things done. He defaulted on Ecuador’s debt (that his predecessor swore would be the death of the country).[vi] He kept his campaign promise to evict the United States military from their base at Manta. He set about correcting some serious problems with the constitution by leading a team to draft a new one. This new constitution would be the first to provide rights to the environment, that is, rivers, lakes, and forests in Ecuador have rights and can be legally defended. He also sponsored a plan to keep the oil in the soil with the Yasuni Initiative, a plan to attract investors whose funds would be used to not extract oil.[vii] The plan and the constitution were hailed as trailblazing. Imagine all that from a dimunitive nation like Ecuador. He also declared solidarity with the plaintiffs in the Amazon against a shameless US corporation[viii] (Shell, now Chevron), whose refusal to act with minimal responsibility when drilling for oil and to clean up after itself has led to serious problems with the land and its inhabitants.[ix] He even invited Julian Assange to come down and live, so he could be sheltered from those countries (Sweden, Australia, the US) willing to destroy liberties to avoid the frightening idea of the free flow of information.

This is not to say that all is rosy. There are plenty of problems that must be dealt with. As in Venezuela and the United States, crime is a serious problem. People are worried about the executive branch having too much power. Mining in the country is deemed necessary by the government but the people that live in areas that will be affected need to have a seat at the table. Furthermore, Correa’s style can offend. His former ally, Alberto Acosta, broke with him because he feared that the president’s ego and quest for power was becoming too much. The progressive constitution the country’s assembly had written was being manipulated by the president in a quest to maintain and increase his power. He was backing down on some of the promises he made about the environment and was increasingly intolerant of dissent. Acosta was challenging him from the left and we can hope that the pressure he applies will keep the president in check and even set agendas like third parties should be able to do. Acosta, who called Correa “the sun-king of the 21st century” claiming that he controls everything,[x] appeared not to have a significant following in the election with only 3.4% of the vote, less than the banana magnate Noboa and Sucio Lucio Gutierrez (yes, both really did run again). His main competition, Lasso with around 22.5% of the vote, was a banker and it was really no contest at all.

It does seem that Correa has broken a lot less promises than President Obama. It also appears that he is probably not going to lock up whistleblowers, kill his own citizens, make a mockery of the citizens’ increasingly undermined civil liberties invade countries for “humanitarian purposes” like Bush and Obama have done. Rather, it seems like he is willing to stand up and count when it matters, like when an oil company poisons a significant portion of the country (BP flavored shrimp anyone?) or when bankers try to get their way by ruthlessly insisting that austerity simply must be carried out. There is an alternative and there shall always be one. Promises should be kept sometimes at least. ¡Viva la revolucion ciudadana in Ecuador and everywhere!

Adam Chimienti is a teacher and a doctoral student originally from New York. He can be reached at ajchimienti@gmail.com. Carmen L. Arias can be reached at karmenarias@gmail.com

Notes
[i] The Washington Post and Daily Mail, amongst others, recently used the adjective tiny, to describe Ecuador, roughly the size of Nevada.

[ii] For a summary of these problems that for the most part have yet to remedied see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html

[iii] Remember Skull and Bones: see this 60 Minutes “Skull and Bones,” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-576332.html

[iv] Alvaro Noboa likes to fashion himself as a philantropist http://www.alvaronoboa.org/2011/03/alvaro-noboa-helping-hand.html but critics contend that he uses the social funds for political purposes when running for office according to his Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_Noboa#cite_note-9. Human Rights Watch has cited him for widespread abuse of labor and for child labor. See http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/04/24/ecuador-widespread-labor-abuse-banana-plantations

[v] Jayati Ghosh. “Could Ecuador be the most radical and exciting place on earth?” The Guardian 19 January 2012 online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/19/ecuador-radical-exciting-place, accessed 18 June 2012.

[vi] For more on the default and the reasoning behind it see Neil Watkins and Sarah Anders. “Ecuador’s Debt Default,” Foreign Policy in Focus December 15, 2008 at http://www.ipsdc.org/articles/ecuadors_debt_default_exposing_a_gap_in_the_global_financial_architecture accessed online on 18 May 2012 and an article titled “Ecuador declares foreign debt illegitimate,” published as an entry in the series Project Censored. Accessed online at http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/10-ecuador-declares-foreign-debt-illegitimate/

[vii] John Vidal. “Can Oil Save the Rainforest?” 19 January 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/20/can-oil-save-the-rainforest, accessed 19 January 2013.

[viii] According to a transcript from an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! on 29 June 2009, http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/29/ecuadoran_president_rafael_correa_on_global, accessed on 21 September 2012.

[ix] William Langeweische. “Jungle Law,” Vanity Fair May 2007, http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/texaco200705, accessed 1 October 2012.

[x] See BBC News Election coverage http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21379601

Proof: Armed Citizens Make Good Government

The Founding Fathers agree: an armed population makes good government. Numerous quotes from the revolutionary era make their intent extremely clear — that individuals were meant to keep and bear arms for the protection of the country and the defense of its Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explicitly states that these amendments to the Constitution were put in place to restrain the federal government and discourage abuse. Ratified Dec. 15, 1791, it reads: "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. "

Meanwhile, history has shown that disarmed populations and dictators always go hand in hand, with abusers and seekers of power preferring a people unable to stand up for their rights and easy to trample and dominate.

Our birthright as Americans is at stake: if we don't stand up to defend the 2nd Amendment, we stand to let all our other precious rights slip away, from freedom of speech on down.

Lupe Fiasco KICKED Off Stage At Obama Inauguration Party Rapper Lupe Fia...

Freedom of speech a la Americana...

El deseo de Año Nuevo de Obama: mantener intacto el statu quo

Amy Goodman

---

En medio del teatro montado por la Casa Blanca y el Congreso en torno a las llamadas negociaciones sobre el precipicio fiscal, el Presidente Obama promulgó una serie de leyes que renovaron algunos de los peores excesos de la época de Bush. Estas leyes, que han sido ampliamente excluidas de la cobertura mediática, consolidan aún más políticas detestables como la detención por tiempo indeterminado, las escuchas telefónicas sin órdenes judiciales y la permanencia de la prisión estadounidense en Bahía de Guantánamo. El acuerdo para evitar el precipicio fiscal de por sí aumenta la probabilidad de que el Presidente Obama pueda sabotear un recorte sin precedentes del inflado presupuesto del Pentágono. El ´feliz año’ no lo es tanto, después de todo.

El domingo 30 de diciembre, la Secretaría de Prensa de la Casa Blanca emitió un escueto comunicado en el que informó: “El Presidente promulgó la ley H.R. 5949 o ‘Ley de Reautorización de Enmiendas a la ley FISA 2012’, que amplía por cinco años el Título VII de la Ley de Vigilancia de Inteligencia Extranjera (FISA, por sus siglas en inglés)”. Así, los polémicos poderes de vigilancia del gobierno fueron renovados hasta finales de 2017. La Unión Estadounidense por las Libertades Civiles describió a la ley como “otra decepcionante votación del Senado a favor de controlar las comunicaciones de los estadounidenses”.

Defensor de las causas progresistas en la Cámara de Representantes, Dennis Kucinich, legislador por Ohio, deberá abandonar su banca en el Congreso tras 16 años luego de que el distrito de Cleveland al que representa fuera eliminado debido a la reestructuración de los distritos impulsada por los republicanos después del censo de 2010. Días antes de su alejamiento del Congreso, le pregunté a Kucinich acerca de la reautorización de la ley FISA.

Kucinich afirmó: “Estamos ingresando al ‘mundo feliz’ [que describía Huxley en su libro], que implica no solo que el aparato del gobierno puede investigar grandes bases de datos y extraer información para intentar identificar a las personas que pueden ser consideradas como amenazas al statu quo, sino que también tenemos aviones no tripulados, que son cada vez más pequeños, que les darán a los gobiernos, a todo nivel, mayor capacidad de vigilar la conducta privada de las personas. Es una pesadilla. El proyecto de ley FISA es tan solo un ejemplo de cómo Estados Unidos ha adoptado un curso de acción que socava las expectativas no solo del derecho a la privacidad, sino también del derecho de no ser requisados o de que nuestros bienes no sean incautados. [Las medidas] para obtener información sobre las personas deberían estar sometidas a una orden judicial. No deben estar sujetas a la decisión de un agente del FBI (...). La promulgación de esta ley es algo negativo”.

A esto se suma la pesadilla de la detención por tiempo indeterminado sin acusación ni juicio. Hace poco más de un año, el Presidente Obama promulgó la Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional para 2012, también conocida como la NDAA anual. Aquella versión de 2012 de la NDAA contenía una polémica disposición que les otorgaba a las fuerzas armadas de Estados Unidos amplios poderes para detener a personas por tiempo indeterminado, no solo a quienes hayan sido identificados como enemigos en el campo de batalla, sino también a cualquier persona que las fuerzas armadas consideraran que “brindó apoyo” al enemigo. Chris Hedges, un ex corresponsal en el extranjero del New York Times, que fue parte del equipo de periodistas que ganó el premio Pulitzer en 2002 por la cobertura que realizó el periódico del terrorismo mundial, demandó al gobierno de Obama debido a que, al trabajar en sus informes, se encuentra a menudo con aquellos a quienes el gobierno de Estados Unidos define como terroristas: “Creo que se trata de una batalla interminable. Los que no aceptamos el relato oficial ya hemos sido atrapados por el estado de seguridad y vigilancia. Como corresponsal en el exterior tuve contacto directo con 17 organizaciones que están en la lista de terrorismo del Departamento de Estado, desde al-Qaeda hasta Hamas, Hezbollah y el PKK, y no hay ninguna disposición en ese artículo en particular de la ley NDAA que excluya a los periodistas”.

Un juez federal aceptó la demanda y ordenó una suspensión que evita la aplicación de dicho artículo de la ley NDAA. El gobierno de Obama apeló el fallo y el caso aún está siendo considerado por un Tribunal de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos. Mientras tanto, la suspensión impuesta judicialmente ha sido revocada. Tras la renovación de la ley NDAA para 2013 y considerando que las disposiciones sobre la detención por tiempo indeterminado han permanecido intactas, Hedges me dijo: “En este momento, el tribunal de apelación es lo único que nos puede salvar de convertirnos en una dictadura militar”.

La NDAA 2013 incluye una disposición que prohíbe al gobierno de Obama gastar parte de los 633.000 millones de dólares del proyecto de ley en la construcción o alteración de cualquier centro de detención destinado a albergar a los prisioneros de Bahía de Guantánamo. Esto deja al Presidente Obama sin margen de acción, a pesar de su orden ejecutiva de 2009 de cerrar el complejo carcelario y de su más reciente reiteración de dicha meta. De los 166 prisioneros que se encuentran detenidos allí, se ha autorizado la liberación de 86, que, a pesar de ello, permanecen en prisión. El grupo Human Rights First acaba de publicar un plan que detalla cómo el Presidente Obama podría cerrar Guantánamo, a pesar de los obstáculos impuestos por el Congreso.

El segundo mandato del Presidente Obama comenzará oficialmente el 21 de enero, el feriado nacional logrado tras una ardua lucha, en el que se celebra el aniversario del nacimiento de Martin Luther King Jr. “El arco del universo moral es amplio, pero se inclina hacia el lado de la justicia”, afirmó King. Si el Presidente Obama aspira a hacer algo más que perpetuar un statu quo injusto, debe tomar medidas de inmediato.

- Amy Goodman es la conductora de Democracy Now!, un noticiero internacional que se emite diariamente en más de 750 emisoras de radio y televisión en inglés y en más de 400 en español. Es co-autora del libro "Los que luchan contra el sistema: Héroes ordinarios en tiempos extraordinarios en Estados Unidos", editado por Le Monde Diplomatique Cono Sur.

Denis Moynihan colaboró en la producción periodística de esta columna.

© 2012 Amy Goodman

Texto en inglés traducido por Mercedes Camps. Edición: María Eva Blotta y Democracy Now! en español

http://www.democracynow.org/es/blog/2013/1/4/el_deseo_de_ao_nuevo_de_obama_mantener_intacto_el_statu_quo