The West’s Looting of Ukraine Has Begun

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

It is now apparent that the “Maiden protests” in Kiev were in actuality a Washington organized coup against the elected democratic government. The purpose of the coup is to put NATO military bases on Ukraine’s border with Russia and to impose an IMF austerity program that serves as cover for Western financial interests to loot the country.  The sincere idealistic protesters who took to the streets without being paid were the gullible dupes of the plot to destroy their country.

Politically Ukraine is an untenable aggregation of Ukrainian and Russian territory, because traditional Russian territories were stuck into the borders of the Ukraine Soviet Republic by Lenin and Khrushchev. The Crimea, stuck into Ukraine by Khrushchev, has already departed and rejoined Russia. Unless some autonomy is granted to them, Russian areas in eastern and southern Ukraine might also depart and return to Russia. If the animosity displayed toward the Russian speaking population by the stooge government in Kiev continues, more defections to Russia are likely.

The Washington-imposed coup faces other possible difficulties from what seems to be a growing conflict between the well-organized Right Sector and the Washington-imposed stooges.  If armed conflict between these two groups were to occur, Washington might conclude that it needs to send help to its stooges.  The appearance of US/NATO troops in Ukraine would create pressure on Putin to occupy the remaining Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.

Before the political and geographical issues are settled, the Western looting of Ukraine has already begun. The Western media, doesn’t tell any more truth about IMF “rescue packages” than it does about anything else. The media reports, and many Ukrainians believe, that the IMF is going to rescue Ukraine financially by giving the country billions of dollars.

Ukraine will never see one dollar of the IMF money. What the IMF is going to do is to substitute Ukrainian indebtedness to the IMF for Ukrainian indebtedness to Western banks.  The IMF will hand over the money to the Western banks, and the Western banks will reduce Ukraine’s indebtedness by the amount of IMF money.  Instead of being indebted to the banks, Ukraine will now be indebted to the IMF.

Now the looting can begin.  The IMF loan brings new conditions and imposes austerity on the Ukrainian people so that the Ukraine government can gather up the money with which to repay the IMF.  The IMF conditions that will be imposed on the struggling Ukraine population will consist of severe reductions in old-age pensions, in government services, in government employment, and in subsidies for basic consumer purchases such as natural gas. Already low living standards will plummet.  In addition, Ukrainian public assets and Ukrainian owned private industries will have to be sold off to Western purchasers.

Additionally, Ukraine will have to float its currency.  In a futile effort to protect its currency’s value from being driven very low (and consequently import prices very high) by speculators ganging up on the currency and short-selling it, Ukraine will borrow more money with which to support its currency in the foreign exchange market. Of course, the currency speculators will end up with the borrowed money, leaving Ukraine much deeper in debt than currently.

The corruption involved is legendary, so the direct result of the gullible Maiden protesters will be lower Ukrainian living standards, more corruption, loss of sovereignty over the country’s economic policy, and the transfer of Ukrainian public and private property to Western interests.

If Ukraine also falls into NATO’s clutches, Ukraine will also find itself in a military alliance against Russia and find itself targeted by Russian missiles.  This will be a tragedy for Ukraine and Russia as Ukrainians have relatives in Russia and Russians have relatives in Ukraine. The two countries have essentially been one for 200 years.  To have them torn apart by Western looting and Washington’s drive for world hegemony is a terrible shame and a great crime.

The gullible dupes who participated in the orchestrated Maiden protests will rue it for the rest of their lives.

When the protests began, I described what the consequences would be and said that I would explain the looting process.  It is not necessary for me to do so. Professor Michel Chossudovsky has explained the IMF looting process along with much history here.

One final word.  Despite unequivocal evidence of one country after another being looted by the West, governments of indebted countries continue to sign up for IMF programs.

Why do governments of countries continue to agree to the foreign looting of their populations?  The only answer is that they are paid.  The corruption that is descending upon Ukraine will make the former regime look honest.

Whats going on in Ukraine ?

Ukraine's "civilizational choice" - a Pyrrhic victory for Russia?

The latest decision by the Yanukovich government to delay any decision about the possible signing of an association agreement with the European Union has been greeted by a mix of shock and outrage by the Western corporate press.  Unanimously, it was decreed that this apparent reversal by Yanukovich himself was the result of Russian blackmail, ruthless power politics and even not-so-veiled threats.  Finally, the media presented this latest development as a personal victory for Putin and a strategic victory for Russia.  In yet another triumph of form over substance western commentators offered lots of drama and hyperbole and very little explanations about what has really happened.  I propose to set aside all the ideological hype and begin with a few basic reminders.

What is "The Ukraine" really?

The Ukraine in its current borders is a completely artificial entity created by the Soviet regime whose borders have no historical basis at all.  In many ways, the Ukrainian SSR was a "mini-Soviet Union, only worse" whose population had suffered horrendously during most of the 20th century (and before).  Furthermore, it is often overlooked that during the early Bolshevik regime, the Nazi occupation, the Soviet regime after WWII and since independence after the fall of the Soviet Union the Ukraine has undergone a steady process of "West-Ukrainization": the language, political culture and even national myths historically associated with the Western Ukraine have been forced upon the rest of the country which has resulted in constant tensions between the generally pro-Western West and the generally pro-Russian East and South.  Finally, to say that the Ukrainian economy is in a deep crisis would be an understatement.  Not only did the Ukraine inherit a lot of very heavy and outdated Soviet industry, it has been completely unable to use any of it to begin a truly local production of goods and services.  The only segments of the Ukrainian economy which have done reasonably well are those providing goods and services for the much larger Russian economy.  In the process, however, these better segments have either become completely dependent upon Russian investments, or have actually been acquired by Russian companies.  None of the above, however, is enough to explain the absolute disaster which has befallen the Ukraine since its independence.  For that, we need to take a look at the Ukrainian political elites.

Who has been running the Ukraine since independence?

Formally, Presidents Kravchuk, Kuchma, Yushchenko and Yanukovich.  In reality, however, since its independence the Ukraine has been in the iron grip of Ukrainian oligarchs.  This is the single most important thing to keep in mind to understand the entire dynamic currently taking place between the EU, Russia and the Ukraine.  In Russia the Presidential regime defeated the oligarchs, in the Ukraine the oligarchs defeated the Presidential regime.  In fact, the Ukrainian oligarchs are very similar to their Russian counterparts of the Eltsin era.  The tragedy of the Ukraine is that there has been no "Ukrainian Putin" and what could have happened in Russia without Putin did actually take place in the Ukraine.

To say that the Ukrainian political elites are corrupt would be an understatement.  The reality is much worse.  All Ukrainian politicians are absolutely unprincipled political prostitutes who can be bought and sold and who have no personal values whatsoever.  None.  It is quite pathetic to read in the Western press that Yulia Tymoshenko is some kind of firebrand nationalist while Yanukovich is pro-Russian.  This is laughable!  Tymoshenko and Yanukovich and, frankly, all the rest of them (Klichko, Symonenko, etc.), are political chameleons who have changed their affiliations many times and who will gladly do so again.  And just as the Russian people were essentially manipulated, powerless and apathetic under the regime of the Eltsin's oligarchs, so are the Ukrainians today who are simply not given any decent person to vote for or support.

The Ukraine between the EU and the Russian-backed customs union

The reason why the association agreement between the EU and the Ukraine was presented by all the political parties (except the Communists) as a "civilizational choice", a "strategic decision" and an "inevitable step" is that it was highly beneficial to the Ukrainian oligarchy which is absolutely terrified of Putin and who wants to keep its current position of power at any cost.  True, a majority of Western Ukrainians want to join the EU but they never would have had the political clout and, frankly, the money to force Yanukovich and the Party of Region to initially appear to support this.  No, the real center of gravity of the pro-EU activism can be found in the Ukrainian oligarchy and its discrete but powerful "friends" in the West - the very same forces who threw their full support behind Eltsin between 1990 and 2000: the Anglo-Zionist empire and its European vassal states.  In contrast, the opposition to this association agreement with the EU was mainly found in the small to medium business circles in the Eastern Ukraine which is essentially dependent on Russia and who would have immediately collapsed into bankruptcy if Russia had reduced its investment in joint programs.   Regardless, the way the Ukrainian elites dealt with this issue made public opinion basically irrelevant.

A "civilizational choice" made by a small corrupt elite?

In trying to convince the Ukrainian people to support the association with the EU the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Western supporters very skillfully "framed" the issue to such a degree as to make it unrecognizable and to make it impossible for the people to express their opinion.  Think of it - if the choice between an association with the EU and a possible participation of the Ukraine into a customs union with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and others was truly a "civilizational choice" - would a popular referendum not be the only proper way to make such a dramatic decision?  Yet, in reality, the decision was made by one man only: Yanukovich.  Furthermore, is it even correct to speak of a "civilizational choice"?  Most polls ask the Ukrainians if they want to join the EU, but that is not at all what is being offered to them.  What is offered to them is only an association with the EU: a deal with was also offered to countries such as Chile, South Africa or Egypt (see here for more details).  This is not at all a first step towards a membership into the EU (Turkey signed such an association in 1964 and is still waiting; does anybody believe that Chile will join the EU?).  As for the entry into a customs union with Russia, it still has to be negotiated so at this point it is impossible to know for sure what the final terms of such a union would be (though the general outline is pretty clear).  And yet, poll after poll after poll, the same question is being asked: "do you want the Ukraine to join the EU?"  Here is an example of this in Wikipedia:

So what is really at stake here?

The short answer is  that what is at stake here is the future of the Ukrainian oligarchy.  The more complex answer is that what is at stake here is what the West can gain by co-opting the Ukrainian oligarchy into its sphere of influence.  In practical terms this means that as long as the West agreed to keep the oligarchs in power it could gain many very real advantages from the Ukraine such as a market for EU goods, cheap labor, the possibility to deploy NATO forces in the Ukraine (without necessarily offering the Ukraine to join NATO) and, first and foremost, the rock-solid guarantee to be able to dictate its terms to the Ukrainian oligarchy which would have no other option than to be hyper-compliant to any Western demands.  Furthermore, the West very much sees this as a zero-sum game, what the West gets - Russia looses.  While not catastrophic by any means, the severance of the current economic ties between Russia and the Ukraine would most definitely hurt Russia, at least in the short term.   Furthermore, the West also believes that an association with the EU would prevent any further integration of Russia and the Ukraine. That is, I believe, probably true, simply because no real integration between the Ukraine and Russia is possible as long as the Ukrainian oligarchs remain in power.

The real objective of the Anglo-Zionist empire in the Ukraine 

Just before Barak Obama got rid of her, Hillary Clinton made an amazingly candid admission about the Empire's real goals in Eastern Europe.  Here is what she said:

There is a move to re-Sovietise the region.  It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that. But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.

Simple, direct and clear.  Even the use of the expression "re-Sovietise" shows that Hillary and, frankly, most of the Western elites are still completely stuck in a Cold War paradigm in which every Russian move is necessarily an evil one and the West and Russia play a zero-sum game.  In the logic of these people, any loss for Russia is by definition a good and highly desirable outcome for the West.

What better way for the Empire is there to "slow down or prevent" any integration of Russia and the Ukraine than to offer the Ukrainian oligarchy an association deal with the EU which would cost the EU nothing and which would inevitably trigger a trade war between the Russia and the Ukraine?

Russian objectives in the Ukraine

Russian objectives in the Ukraine are pretty straightforward.   First, Russia believes that a customs union with the Ukraine would be mutually beneficial.  Second, Russia also hopes that, with time, such a mutually beneficial union would serve to deflate anti-Russian feelings (which are always stirred up by the Ukrainian political elites) and that, with time, the Ukraine could become a member of the future Eurasian Union.  Third, judging by its bitter experience with Central European countries, the Baltic States and Georgia, Russia definitely hopes to prevent the Ukraine from becoming the next colony of the Anglo-Zionist Empire in Europe.  Finally, a majority of Russians believe that the Russian and Ukrainian people are either one nation or, at least, two "brother nations" who share a common history and whose natural calling is to live in friendship and solidarity.

Are the Russian objectives in the Ukraine realistic?

Ironically, Russia faces exactly the same problem in the Ukraine as the Anglo-Zionist Empire: the Ukraine in its current borders is a completely artificial creation.  Everybody pretty much agrees that the Western Ukraine and the Eastern Ukraine have almost exclusively opposite goals. On all levels - language, economy, politics, history, culture - the western and eastern parts of the Ukraine are completely different.  The center, and the capital city of Kiev is a mix of both east and west while the south is really a unique cultural entity, different from the rest of the country and which is even more diverse than the rest of the country.  An armchair strategist might suggest that the "obvious" solution would be to break up the Ukraine into two or more parts and let each part chose, but this "solution" has two major problems: first, breaking up an artificial country is anextremely dangerous thing to do (remember Bosnia or Kosovo!) and, second, there is absolutely no way that the West and its Ukrainian nationalist puppets are ever going to accept such a "solution" (they even insist that the Crimean Peninsula must forever be considered a part of the Ukraine, even though it was only donated by Khrushchev to the Ukrainian SSR  in 1954!).

Furthermore, I believe that an even deeper analysis of the consequences of an integration of the Ukraine into Russia should be made before jumping to conclusions.  If, indeed, the Ukraine is a "big Bosnia", does it make sense for Russia to want to bring this "big Bosnia" inside its otherwise very prosperous union with Belarus, Kazakhstan and others nations to the east?  I do not argue against the argument that history clearly shows that the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and all parts of one historical/cultural body.  What I am saying is that the Ukrainian part of that body is suffering from a very dangerous form of gangrene and that I do not see how Russia and the rest of the (future) Eurasian Union could heal this member.

While some segments of the Ukrainian economy do have an interesting potential for Russia, most of it is a disaster with no chance at all for reform.  Politically, the Ukraine is a slow-motion disaster where corrupt politicians fight with each other for the chance to get money and support from the local oligarchs and their western patrons.  Socially, the Ukraine is a ticking time-bomb which must explode, sooner or later, and while Russia can continue to bail out the Ukrainian economy with loan after loan after loan, this cannot go on forever.  Finally, the western Ukraine is a Petri dish of the worst kind of Russophobic hysteria, often crossing into outright neo-Nazi propaganda, which will never accept any deal with the hated "Moskals" (Russians, or "Muscovyites" in the nationalist lexicon).

The frightening fact is that in its current configuration the Ukraine is headed for disaster no matter who prevails, Yanukovich or the opposition.   Just look at what the "liberals" and "democrats" achieved during the rule of Eltsin's oligarchs: Russia's economy completely collapsed, the country almost broke up into many small parts, Mafia dons ran the entire underground economy while Jewish oligarchs literally pillaged the wealth of Russia and relocated it abroad, while the media was busy feeding the Russian people absolute lies and nonsense.  Well, today,exactly the same type people are running the show in the Ukraine.  

The big difference

Looking back to what happened in the past 20 years or so it becomes immediately apparent why the Ukraine ended up in its current nightmare while Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan did so much better.  The answer has three words: Nazarbaev, Putin, Lukashenko.  I listed Nazarbaev first because he always was for an integration with Russia and its allies - Kazhakhstan never really wanted its independence in the first place and it was literally pushed out by Eltsin and his "democratic" allies Kravchuk and Shushkevich).  Putin only showed up on the political scene a full decade after Nazarbaev had tried to do his best to maintain a single post-Soviet country.  As for Lukashenko, he is a complex and eccentric personality who follows a rather bizarre policy towards Russia: he wants to integrate Belarus with the very market-oriented Russia while keeping Belarus and its economy and society in a "neo-Soviet" condition.  For all their differences, Nazarbaev, Putin and Lukashenko have emerged as three powerful figures who did get their local oligarchs under control and who have thereby prevented their countries from becoming Anglo-Zionist colonies.  In contrast, no real national leader has emerged in the Ukraine: every single Ukrainian politician is a joke and a puppet in the hands of private interests.

Ukraine's "civilizational choice" - a  Pyrrhic victory for Russia?

At this moment in time, the Western media is trying to present Yanukovich's decision to delay any further negotiations on the association with the EU as a huge strategic victory for Putin and Russia.  I personally disagree.  While it is true that by this decision Yanukovich has delayed the collapse of the Ukrainian economy this is only a delaying tactic, nothing in substance has changed.  Furthermore, while it is vital for the Ukraine not to sever its current economic ties with Russia, this is not true for Russia, especially in the long run.  Of course, an economic collapse of the Ukraine would be bad news for Russia too who really does not need its big neighbor to go down the "Bosnian scenario" lest Russia be pulled in, which it almost inevitably would.  But having avoided an immediate disaster in the Ukraine is hardly something I could call a "strategic victory" for Russia.  One could make the case that the best option for Russia would be to take some huge scissors, make a deep cut along the current border between Russia and the Ukraine and relocate the latter somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  This not being an option, the next best thing would be to make it possible for the Ukraine to break up into its natural components and integrate the Eastern Ukraine into the Eurasian Union.  Alas, at this moment in time, this option is as impossible as the first one.  What is then left for Russia?  What is the "least bad" option Russia can try to make the best of?  Exactly what it is doing today: try to prevent a complete collapse of the Ukrainian economy while hoping for a "Ukrainian Putin" to eventually emerge.  A "Ukrainian Putin" would be a real patriot whose first priority would be to get rid of the Ukrainian oligarchs, the second one would be to clearly indicate to the Anglo-Zionists that they are no longer welcome in their capacity as colonial overlords, and third to try to get the best deal possible for the Ukrainian people in a future Eurasian Union.  So far, there is absolutely no sign of such a figure emerging in the Ukraine.

So yes, Yanukovich's last minute change of mind is good news for the Ukraine and for Russia, but this is hardly a victory of any kind for Putin or Russia.  First, I would not put it past Yanukovich to change his mind yet again (the man has no principles or values to speak of).  Second, we already see that the Empire is going absolutely apeshit with rage over this latest development and that the US and EU will spare no efforts to orchestrate yet another revolution in Kiev.  Same thing for the Ukrainian opposition which now will get a huge influx of dollars from the West to create as much chaos as possible.  As for the Ukrainian people, they will be given no option at all other than to express their opinion in opinion polls asking the wrong question.  Finally, as long as the current Ukrainian oligarchy remains in power, there will be no reason at all to hope for any meaningful improvements in the plight of the Ukraine and its people.

The Saker

El 11 de septiembre del cono sur: quebranto de la democracia y la dignid...

Leaders in Europe Cave Under US Pressure over Snowden

Europe’s Shame: Snowden and Morales

by DAVE LINDORFF

Those of us who have been saying that the US has become a weak, or at least more ordinary power among many in the world because of its military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because of its economic decline, will have to recalibrate our analysis after watching the pathetic behavior of the leaders of Russia, Germany and France under pressure from the Obama administration not to allow Edward Snowden to gain asylum in those countries or even to escape his purgatory in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport.

Last night, in an astonishing display of fawning obedience to the demands of US leaders, France and Germany first announced that they would not grant asylum to Snowden, despite broad popular support by French and German people for such an offer of aid to the embattled whistleblower. Then, France and Portugal abruptly refused to allow a Bolivian aircraft carrying the country’s president, Evo Morales, from a state visit with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, to land for refueling in their countries, saying that they were concerned he might be flying Snowden to asylum in Bolivia.

Although Spain said eventually it would allow the Morales plane to refuel in the Canary Islands, it did not have enough fuel to get there and had to be diverted to Vienna, where, astonishingly, it was then searched like a drug-smuggling flight over Bolivian protests. Snowden was not aboard. A furious Morales immediately blamed the US Department of State for the whole incident — a charge that no one has disputed, though of course the US is refusing to comment.

Aircraft carrying national leaders have absolute diplomatic immunity under international law and moreover, Bolivia would have the absolute right to grant Snowden amnesty, and to bring him to its territory, whether or not he had a valid passport. As the leader of a sovereign nation, Morales has every right to carry anyone he wants on his plane with him back to his country.

That France, Portugal and Austria would so violate such basic diplomatic rules suggests that the US (which of course has long demonstrated that it views diplomatic rules and international law as applying only to others, but not itself) has some powerful leverage to exert behind the scenes. The more so because this whole incident makes leaders like French President Francois Hollande, who only the day before had suggested his country might consider Snowden’s asylum appeal, look foolish, and because this aggressive and hostile action taken against the leader of a sovereign nation makes France, as well as Portugal and Italy, look pathetic and ridiculous at a time that public sentiment across Europe is solidly in support of Snowden. (An activist friend in Germany reports that sentiment there in support of Snowden and even of granting him asylum is “probably at about 80%,” and that is probably also true in France.)

This latest incident, which has incredibly not been protested either by Russia’s Putin, from whose country the disrupted flight originated, and who was Morales’ official host, also shows Putin and Russia to be under America’s thumb. Who could have imagined Putin allowing a meeting of leaders in his own country to be so shamed by US intervention with a foreign leader’s return flight home without a loud protest and even some counter action. At a minimum the US ambassador should have been called in to be tongue-lashed by the Russian president.

Has the US, with its massive spy network, just demonstrated that it now has a power greater than its nuclear arsenal: a dossier perhaps on almost every leader in the world with which it is able to blackmail even the likes of Hollande, Merkel and Putin? It is hard to come up with another explanation for the way this incident played out.

We will have to see now whether Morales, a popular leader from an impoverished indigenous background who is clearly no coward and who is probably too clean to be blackmailed, will make good on his assertion made in Moscow that Snowden would be welcome in Bolivia. Russia could recover a modicum of its self-respect by flying him there on a Russian plane to avoid similar US-orchestrated interference. Venezuela’s new president, Nicolás Maduro, who has also spoken favorably of granting asylum status to the National Security Agency whistleblower, should also step up at this point. Since he is still in Russia, he could offer to bring Snowden back home with him, and dare the nations of Europe to try and stop him.

Europeans are pissed already off at the US, in the wake of National Security Agency leaker Snowden’s latest revelation that the US was aggressively spying on its European allies, both at their and the European Union’s embassies in Washington, and in Europe itself, gleaning not information about terrorism, but inside-track knowledge about trade negotiation positions and other areas of disagreement or negotiation.

Leaders in Germany, France, Italy,  and other European countries are demanding that the US cease its spying on them, and give a “full accounting” of the spying that it has been engaging in. But given the steady stream of lies coming from the NSA, the Obama Administration, Secretary of State John Kerry, and other American sources, why should they believe anything they are being told? Most Europeans understand now that all this bluster from their leaders is just that: bluster.

Europe’s leaders have shown themselves to their own people to be sell-outs in the pocket of the US.  As several commenters on the website of the German magazine Der Spiegel, which last week ran a cover expose about the NSA spying program directed against European leaders, have written, Germany’s and France’s leaders have sold out their countries and people by caving in to US demands. As one person wrote: “Our government has sold us out and is beyond help.”

To be sure there was a wave of tough talk only days earlier, with, for example, Martin Schulz, the president of the European parliament, saying that the NSA is like the Soviet-era KGB, and with leaders of countries like Ireland and Norway saying that they might consider amnesty for Snowden, but only if he could reach their soil first — a ludicrous requirement, since there is no international law requiring such silliness. Any country can grant asylum to any person it wishes, wherever that person may be at the moment. They cannot offer protection, of course, except in an embassy or in-country, but that’s different from just offering a grant of amnesty. Indeed, the mere fact that the US has cancelled Snowden’s passport doesn’t mean his passport cannot be respected as a travel document by another country. How, in fact, when you think about it, would a country know that a person’s passport had been “cancelled” unless the issuing nation had issued some kind of news release about it as the US did in Snowden’s case? There’s no international registry of global passports. Those records are held closely by each country and in fact are supposed to be secure.  Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Norway, Ireland or any other country that had said at any point that it would be willing to accept Snowden, could stamp their visa on his passport and accept him on their planes.  (Even the US Passport Office accepts an old, expired passport as an identity document when one is applying for a new one.)

After this abject display of rank servitude in the interest of the US Imperium by some of Europe’s most powerful nations, if little Bolivia and/or Venezuela don’t step up and show Europe how sovereign nations are supposed to act, it will be up to the people of Europe to act.

Certainly, following the latest revelations in the Guardian and elsewhere showing that the NSA has been vacuuming up data on millions of Europeans, and with former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden stating publicly that the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution — the one that at least used to protect Americans’ right to privacy and from government search and seizure — “is not an international treaty,”  the anger among Europeans at US spying is swelling, and with it, support for the embattled whistleblower Snowden.

We can only hope that the revelations of outrageous US intelligence abuses and violation of Europeans’ privacy rights will continue, that the rage against the US among ordinary European citizens will grow. We can only hope that with that growing rage, a desire to stick it to the US by protecting Snowden will grow too, until some European leader finally sees it as a popular or necesssary move to offer him asylum.

This latest abomination in the treatment of Bolivia and its leader, which has shamed  France, Portugal, Austria, Italy and Russia, will be a great test of how angry the peoples of those countries are about their leaders’ servile behavior towards the US.

Of course, we in the US should be the most outraged of all, but sadly, there is probably even less chance that a majority Americans will get angry at all this than that Europeans will.

DAVE LINDORFF is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

The Empire Strikes Out

Bolivian Plane (and Sovereignty) Grounded by US

by KEN KLIPPENSTEIN

Yesterday the Bolivian presidential plane was forced to land due, in theNew York Times’ words, to “suspicions that Mr. Snowden was aboard.” As the Bolivian Defense Minister has pointed out, this “is a violation of the conventions and agreements of international air transportation.”

The plane originally intended to land in Lisbon, Portugal for refueling; however, it was denied permission to land, forcing it to instead refuel in Vienna, Austria. Austrian officials have since confirmed that Snowdenwas not on board. The U.S. was almost certainly behind this maneuver, unless you believe that Portugal acted independently—unlikely given that Snowden is leaking only U.S. data, some of which showed that the U.S. has been spying on Europe extensively.

Obama, assuming the annoyingly unflappable, measured persona he always does when addressing embarrassments to his administration, said that he’s “not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year old hacker.” Not scramble them—just force them to land. His earlier claim that he’s “following all the appropriate legal channels…to make sure that rule of law is observed” in apprehending Snowden is a statement that now reads like sarcasm. John Kerry’s lecturing admonition that “it’s important to uphold the rule of law and respect the relationship between two nations”, directed at Russia for its refusal to extradite Snowden, is similarly laughable.

Somewhat more surprising is the cowardice of European officials, namely those of Portugal and France (France also disallowed the Bolivian presidential plane from flying through their airspace). Just days after Snowden’s revelation that the U.S. had bugged European Union diplomatic missions in both Washington, D.C. and the United Nations, EU leaders seemed furious. French President Francois Hollande asserted, “We cannot accept this kind of behavior between partners and allies.” This kind of indignation is limited, of course, to words and not actions: the French Finance Minister yesterday said thatSnowden’s asylum request to France is “not an issue”; and now, of course, Hollande’s administration denies a plane passage based on the possibility that it was carrying the very whistleblower who informed them of the “kind of behavior” to which Hollande expressed dismay.

The German Chancellor’s Spokesman said of the spying scandal, “we are no longer in the Cold War”. Her remarks can be assumed to be no more sincere than those of Obama, Hollande, et al. Yet the sentiment she’s expressing is held quite seriously by the German people. During the Cold War, Germany was split between two superpowers: the U.S. and U.S.S.R. East Germany belonged to the Soviets, whereas West Germany was allied with NATO. During this time, Germans were heavily surveilled by both sides. Regarding empires, the currency on which their political economies function is control. Whether or not a particular state is an ally of an empire is irrelevant; control will still be exercised over them. What empires will not under any circumstance tolerate is independence, which brings us to Bolivia.

The Bolivian Vice President put it well when he characterized the grounding of the Bolivian presidential plane as an “act of imperial arrogance.” Once again, imperial empires derive their power from control—economic, military and otherwise—over other countries. As Snowden’s list of countries that have not yet rejected his asylum bid dwindles, we see which countries are not truly satellites to U.S. power. One of these is Bolivia.

Whether or not Snowden was on the plane may not have even been relevant to U.S. officials. The grounding of the Bolivian presidential plane signifies a power even more awesome than the ability to capture whistleblowers: the ability to capture even potentially wayward heads of state—of which Bolivian President Morales is one, for merely considering Snowden’s asylum request. The same dynamic is at work when Latinos in Arizona are systematically stopped, searched and asked for their passports. The authorities don’t particularly care about illegal immigration (it offers cheap, non-union labor and is therefore favorable to big business); what they care about is that Latinos know who’s in charge.

This concept may seem nebulous to the privileged, but those inhabiting the less privileged levels of society are thoroughly familiar with the dynamic to which I’m referring. Totalitarian states like the U.S. depend, as the root word suggests, on total control. When someone like Morales even intimates that he’ll consider Snowden’s request for asylum, this diminishes the totality of U.S. power. And so he, like a Black man being racially profiled and searched for possession, will be grounded and searched for possession of a certain whistleblower.

Ken Klippenstein lives in Madison, Wisconsin, USA, where he co-edits the left issues journal, whiterosereader.org He can be reached at Reader246@gmail.com

How Class Works - Richard Wolff Examines Class

Richard Wolff is an economist who has studied class issues for more than 40 years. In this animation and audio presentation, Wolff explains what class is all about and applies that understanding to the foreclosure crisis of 2007--2011. He argues that class concerns the "way our society splits up the output [and] leaves those who get the profits in the position of deciding and figuring out what to do with them... We all live with the results of what a really tiny minority in our society decides to do with the profits everybody produces." As you watch and listen, consider what we know from research about disease and illness patterns among groups with lower income, more stress, and less control of their lives. Consider how investment decisions in neighborhoods, over transportation, school facilities, parks, location of grocery stores, quality of affordable housing, etc. influenced by powerful interests, affect the quality of life for large segments of the population.
http://rdwolff.com/

This video was produced by the National Association of County and City Public Health Officals (NACCHO) as a part of thier Roots of Health Inequality Project. The project is a web-based course for the public health workforce and "How Class Works" is one section of the course.
http://www.rootsofhealthinequity.org/...

http://www.thedossier.info/

Lula: "Hay que entender el significado de Chávez en la política nacional e internacional"

Gilberto Lopes

Rebelión

Cuando los ecos de la voz del vicepresidente Nicolás Maduro apenas se apagaban, diciendo haber recibido la información “más dura y trágica que podamos transmitir a nuestro pueblo”, mientras miles de personas y una treintena de jefes de Estado y de gobierno rendían un último homenaje a Hugo Chávez, en Caracas, su colega, el expresidente de Brasil, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, en un artículo publicado en el New York Times el 6 de marzo, advertía: “tenemos, primero, que entender el papel de Chávez, tanto en el contexto político interno, como internacional. Solo entonces podremos definir las tareas pendientes, solo así podremos consolidar los avances hacia la unidad internacional logrados en la década pasada” en la región.

El escenario

La dimensión del acontecimiento quedó reflejado en la ceremonia oficial celebrada el viernes, 8 de marzo. El desfile de gobernantes latinoamericanos y del Caribe (prácticamente todos), las delegaciones extra regionales, la presencia del príncipe Felipe, así como la inexpresiva delegación de los Estados Unidos, encabezada por su encargado de negocios en Caracas, mostraba una cara de ese escenario político al que se refería Lula.

Argentina, Brasil, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, México, Perú, Uruguay, República Dominicana y Nicaragua se sumaron al luto que vive Venezuela. La presidenta de Brasil, Dilma Rousseff decretó tres días de duelo nacional, igual que el Gobierno de Uruguay, que en una resolución destacó que la muerte de Chávez enluta a toda la comunidad internacional.

Esa gran excitación parecía solo el reflejo de lo mucho que está en juego en este escenario de crisis mundial, en el cual el proceso encabezado por Chávez, en Venezuela, no es una pieza menor, como quedó en evidencia también en la reacción de los medios de comunicación.
Una avalancha de información copó, durante varios días, los espacios de prensa, no solo en América Latina. Fue quizás en España donde los principales medios escritos y la televisión arremetieron de forma más unánime contra el gobierno venezolano, de la que la última afirmación del muy conservador diario ABC, sugiriendo que Chávez habría muerto en La Habana, era solo una pieza más de una campaña bien orquestada durante los tres meses finales de vida del presidente venezolano.

Apuesta conservadora española que repite la otra, hecha hace ya algo más de diez años, en abril del 2002, por el gobierno de José María Aznar, cuando apoyó al golpe militar contra Chávez (como puede verse en documentos de la época).

Vicenç Navarro, profesor en universidades españoles y estadounidenses, apuntaba a los que critican la calidad de la democracia en Venezuela, refiriéndose a la española: “Uno de los indicadores de la escasa calidad de la democracia española es la limitadísima diversidad ideológica” en sus medios de mayor difusión.

El codirector del Center for Economic and Policy Research, en Washington, Mark Weisbrot, recordaba –a respecto del tratamiento de algunos medios a Chávez– una frase del filósofo inglés, Bertrand Russel, a respecto de Thomas Paine, uno de los “padres fundadores” de los Estados Unidos: –No era perfecto, pero fue por sus virtudes que lo odiaron y calumniaron con éxito.

Otro mundo (el escenario regional)

La Venezuela de Chávez “fue un referente principal en el viraje político ocurrido en la última década en América Latina, con el surgimiento de gobiernos que, con distintos matices y actitudes –la Argentina de los Kirchner-Fernández, el Brasil de Lula-Rousseff, la Bolivia de Evo Morales, el Ecuador de Rafael Correa, la Venezuela de Hugo Chávez–, han resuelto hacer realidad el principio de soberanía y han emprendido un realineamiento regional sin precedentes que busca la integración latinoamericana con superación de la miseria y las desigualdades sociales compartidas, y que han constituido un contrapeso necesario a la proyección hegemónica Estados Unidos en la región”, señaló el diario mexicano La Jornada en editorial.

Ese afán de unidad regional que destacó Lula fue la impronta de la gestión de Chávez. En ese camino hacia la unidad –afirmó– “hemos llegado a un punto de no retorno”
Lula recordó el papel de Chávez en la creación de Unasur, en 2008, y de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (Celac), así como del Banco del Sur, institución financiera independiente del Banco Mundial y del Banco interamericano de Desarrollo (BID). Del mismo modo, en la Celac, no participan Estados Unidos ni Canadá.

Ese cambio fue destacado también por Vicenç Navarro, quien recordó que durante años América Latina ha estado gobernada por gobiernos neoliberales “que expandieron la pobreza de sus poblaciones de una manera muy notable”. Ello provocó una oleada de protestas “que conllevó el establecimiento, por medios democráticos, de gobiernos reformistas de izquierda, no sólo en Venezuela, sino también en Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina y Uruguay, entre otros (que aparecen como las bestias negras), y que elección tras elección continúan siendo reelegidos”.
Casi todo lo auspiciado por Bush “fue rechazado por Chávez”, como ocurrió con el Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA), descartada durante la Cumbre de las Américas de Mar del Plata (Argentina) en 2005, sustituida después por la Alianza Bolivariana para las Américas (ALBA).

Lula no mencionó Petrocaribe, ni la Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA), quizás la iniciativa con el más claro sello de Chávez, que ha dado asistencia a países como Cuba, Bolivia y Nicaragua, entre otros, e integrada, además, por Ecuador, Antigua y Barbuda, Dominica, Santa. Lucia, San Vicente y Suriname.

Pero la influencia de Chávez no se hizo sentir solo en el contexto multilateral, sino que también fue reconocida en las relaciones bilaterales. Por algo el presidente colombiano, José Manuel Santos estuvo presente en Caracas, precisamente cuando se desarrollan negociaciones de paz con las FARC en La Habana. El representante a la Cámara, Iván Cepeda Castro, destacó, “entre sus grandes contribuciones, la incansable búsqueda de paz en Colombia”.

La otra cara de ese escenario regional es la de los críticos que han visto, en su muerte, una nueva oportunidad para avanzar sus intereses.

La congresista cubano-americana Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Presidente del subcomité del Medio Oriente y África del Norte, afirmó que “la muerte de Chávez trae la oportunidad a Venezuela para resurgir de este régimen opresivo y restaurar la democracia al pueblo venezolano”. Y agregó: “Ahora está en manos del pueblo venezolano redefinir y reconstruir su país cómo un estado pacífico, democrático, y próspero; libre de la opresión de Chávez”, como si durante estos 14 años no se hubiesen celebrado elecciones periódicas en Venezuela, en las que Chávez fue siempre reelegido.

A su voz se sumaron otras. El diario catalán La Vanguardia destacó la
representante demócrata por Nueva York, José Serrano, quien colgó el siguiente mensaje en su cuenta de Twitter: "Hugo Chávez era un líder que entendía las necesidades de los pobres. Su cometido era dar poder a los sin poder. D.E.P. señor presidente".

Otros republicanos, como el presidente del Comité de Asuntos Exteriores de la Cámara Baja, el congresista por California Ed Royce, emitió un comunicado en el que acusaba a Hugo Chávez de ser un “tirano que forzaba al pueblo de Venezuela a vivir en el miedo. Su muerte merma la alianza de líderes izquierdistas anti EEUU en Sudamérica. ¡Qué alivio!", manifestó.

Lo cierto es que, en medio de la crisis económica y de la otra, aun más profunda, de un modelo neoliberal privatizador cuyas consecuencias se hacen cada vez más evidentes, la oposición venezolana tendrá que buscar su propio camino, en una Venezuela donde el actual gobierno tiene mayoría legislativa y controla 20 de las 23 gobernaciones.
En América Latina, esa ofensiva conservadora se expresa en la línea de acusar a Cuba y Venezuela de interferencia en los asuntos internos de los países, como lo hizo el exsenador Filemón Escobar, en Bolivia. Fundador del Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), Escobar representa hoy otro punto de vista y afirma que la influencia venezolana y cubana “está distorsionando la plataforma que obtuvo la primera elección de Morales en 2006”. “Esto ya no es un proyecto boliviano. Es la política de la división, de enfrentar a un boliviano contra otro boliviano. Esto es lo que hemos aprendido de los modelos 'socialistas' cubanos y venezolanos”, declaró Escobar, quien fue expulsado de MAS.

"Parecen exageradas las noticias de que una ausencia de Chávez tendría reflejos en toda Suramérica, donde casi todos los Gobiernos son de centroizquierda" y "fueron elegidos por razones estrictamente nacionales, no por la influencia del líder venezolano", opinó al respecto la analista brasileña Tereza Cruvinel, en un artículo publicado en la prensa de su país.

Elecciones

La muerte de Chávez antes de asumir su nuevo mandato obliga a elecciones dentro de 30 días, según la constitución venezolana, lo que todos consideran como el primer desafío para probar la solidez del proceso de cambios promovido por el mandatario fallecido.

La ausencia definitiva del mandatario venezolano –dijo un editorial del diario mexicano La Jornada– “plantea una disyuntiva entre la continuidad o no del proyecto de transformación política, económica y social iniciado hace casi 14 años, que marcó un parteaguas en la historia de ese país y de la región”.

Maduro, de 50 años, será el candidato oficialista para estas elecciones presidenciales, probablemente contra el líder opositor Henrique Capriles, de 40 años, derrotado por Chávez en las elecciones del 7 de octubre pasado y actual gobernador del estado de Miranda.
El candidato oficialista quedó definido por el mismo Chávez quien, antes de partir para su último viaje a La Habana, en diciembre, dejó claramente designado a Maduro como el representante del actual partido gobernante.

Pese a esto, algunos medios promueven una permanente discusión sobre las relaciones entre Maduro y el presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa, Diosdado Cabello, que les parece la puerta de entrada más fácil para tratar de quebrar la unidad del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV), hasta ahora sin éxito.

Por su parte, los opositores de la Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD) apuran su estrategia electoral. Hay consenso de que Capriles es el único candidato posible, pero aún quedan detalles por negociar, escribía, desde Caracas, Daniel Lozano, para el diario La Nación, de Buenos Aires,
Pero la Mesa enfrenta también sus problemas. La lectura, la semana pasada, de un comunicado de la organización “mostró la intención de soldar, aunque sea momentáneamente, la fractura abierta entre Capriles y su partido, Primero Justicia, y varias de las organizaciones de la ‘vieja’ Venezuela”, como los socialdemócratas y socialcristianos de AD y Copei”.

La MUD espera el mejor momento para presentar a su candidato para las elecciones, que deben realizarse en abril. “Los partidos quieren más presencia en la campaña y también que Capriles asuma un compromiso de no reelección”. También estarían negociando presentarse en una boleta única, y no como en las pasadas elecciones, cuando los electores tenían un solo candidato representado en varias tarjetas electorales.

En el escenario militar

En enero se empezó a hacer público el debate sobre el escenario militar en la política venezolana. Ya la situación de Chávez se había complicado y los resultados de su cuarta operación eran inciertos, de pronóstico difícil.

El 6 de enero, en un artículo titulado “El partido militar: garante de la unidad revolucionaria bolivariana”, Humberto Trómpiz, un académico venezolano, planteó el tema, sobre el que volvió en artículos posteriores. En uno de esos artículos, publicado a fines de febrero, recordó que, en el discurso de Angostura, Bolívar “dejó claramente establecido que sería el partido militar patriota el que estaba llamado a conducir el destino político de la naciente república”.
También en la oposición se levantaron voces en el mismo sentido, expresadas en un editorial de la página “Analítica” el mismo 6 de enero, titulado “La suerte está echada: el fin de la República”.

Escrito después de la abrumadora victoria del gobierno en las elecciones municipales, donde conquistaron 20, de 23 gobernaciones, “Analítica” planteó que era “fundamental organizar una nueva estructura política en la que las diversas fuerzas existentes se unan bajo una sola dirección colegiada y designen al líder que ha de conducirlas en larga y cruenta lucha por restablecer un orden democrático en Venezuela”. Días después, en otro artículo, se preguntaba: “¿Qué más va a esperar la MUD?”, la Mesa de Unidad Democrática en que se organizó la oposición para enfrentar las elecciones. Ahí decía: “Hay que preparar desde ya un plan A, B y hasta C que deba prever, entre otras, un esquema organizativo adaptado a las circunstancias cambiables”

Las elecciones municipales –decían– “son claramente importantes en un régimen democrático , pero ¿acaso estamos viviendo en un estado de normalidad democrática?”

Los militares en el escenario

La oposición amenazaba con ir a un “paro cívico” el 10 de enero (día en que Chávez debería asumir su nuevo mandato). Finalmente, no lo pudo realizar, pero ya los planes “B” y “C” estaban en marcha.

Fue en ese contexto que la agencia de noticias AP fue a buscar al general retirado Raúl Baduel, exministro de Defensa del gobierno de Chávez, de quien fue uno de los más cercanos aliados desde los inicios políticos del presidente ahora fallecido, condenado en un juicio en el que fue acusado de corrupción. Carismático, de larga trayectoria dentro del ejército, donde recorrió todos los escalafones, el general Baduel tendrá, sin duda, alguna influencia entre sus pares.
Desde la cárcel de Ramo Verde, Baduel dio a conocer su punto de vista sobre la situación política del país. La entrevista fue publicada por el diario “El Universal” el 21 de enero, bajo el título “Baduel: Venezuela tiene un futuro incierto ante la salud de Chávez”.

"Se acentúa cada vez más en nuestro país la deplorable situación de degradación de la institucionalidad democrática”, dijo en la entrevista. Y agregó que, a pesar de los "dislates'' del Alto Mando, confía en que "no representan a la mayoría'' de la Fuerza Armada, que está integrada por 134 mil uniformados.

La presencia militar volvió a aparecer en el escenario el mismo día de la muerte de Chávez, cuando el gobierno venezolano expulsó a un agregado militar de la embajada norteamericana en Caracas, el coronel David Delmonico. El Pentágono confirmó discretamente que el coronel ya estaba de regreso, pero no hizo comentarios. Un segundo militar, David Kostal, fue también expulsado, ambos bajo la acusación de haber contactado de forma irregular a militares venezolanos.

Maduro afirmó que el agregado aéreo militar estadounidense se había dado a la tarea “de buscar militares activos para, primero, investigar la situación de la Fuerza Armada y, en segundo lugar, para proponerles proyectos desestabilizadores, para conectarlos con los proyectos desestabilizadores". La Casa Blanca lo desmintió.

Ese mismo 5 de marzo el ministro de Defensa venezolano, almirante Diego Molero, expresó, en una cadena de radio y televisión, que "la Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana, garante de la Constitución, leyes y reglamentos, se hace eco a ese llamado de unidad, empezando por nosotros mismos".

Quedaba claro que también en este terreno se disputan posiciones.

Escenario económico

El otro escenario del conflicto es el económico. Una afirmación que explica la naturaleza del conflicto es la siguiente: –La promulgación de una ley de hidrocarburos en el 2001 obligó a todas las transnacionales interesadas en explotar crudo a participar en calidad de socias minoritarias de la estatal Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

CNN aseguró que “Chávez hizo de las nacionalizaciones una marca registrada de su gestión. Desde que asumió el poder en 1999, ordenó la adquisición forzosa de grandes empresas petroleras, eléctricas, siderúrgicas, bancos y telefónicas, así como de pequeñas industrias productoras de envases, sanitarios y tuberías”.

Pero no pueden ocultar la otra cara de la moneda. “Con un Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) que creció 5,6% en 2012, de acuerdo con datos del Banco Central de Venezuela, el país mantuvo la senda de expansión por 22 trimestres consecutivos, sólo interrumpido en 2009 y 2010 por la crisis mundial”.

Los críticos hacen énfasis en que el hilo conductor de la política para abatir la inflación, diseñada por el gobierno venezolano “ha sido una única: fijar el tipo de cambio para abaratar las importaciones a costa de la destrucción del aparato productivo interno”. En el 2003, tras un paro petrolero de dos meses que intentaba derrocarlo y golpeó las finanzas del país, Chávez impuso un control de divisas que, dijo, había llegado “para quedarse”.

La deuda neta del gobierno aumentaría a 19% y 22% del PIB en 2012 y 2013, respectivamente, usando el tipo de cambio oficial. La calificadora de valores Fitch estimó, luego de las pasada elecciones de octubre, que el gobierno enfrentaba el desafío de ajustar su política cambiaria y enfrentar un amenazante déficit fiscal, de aproximadamente 3,8% del PIB en 2012 y 2013 y ligeramente inferior al 4% en 2011.

Efectivamente, el 8 de febrero pasado el gobierno devaluó un 32% el bolívar, que pasó a valer, de los 4,3 vigentes desde 2011, a 6,3 por dólar.

Argumentos sobre el desempeño de la economía venezolana se pueden encontrar en páginas de internet, con la opinión de los ya mencionados Vicenç Navarro y Mark Weisbrot, y de Moisés Naím, “uno de los arquitectos de las políticas de austeridad en el gobierno de Carlos Andrés Pérez durante el periodo 1989-1990, cuando, siendo ministro de Industria en 1989, ocurrió el ‘Caracazo’”.

Moisés Naím “ha estado promoviendo el punto de vista, también transmitido por el gobierno federal de Estados Unidos, de que el gobierno Chávez ha llevado a Venezuela al desastre, creando un déficit público que, según él, representa el 20% del PIB; estableciendo un sector público hipertrofiado que ha ahogado a la economía venezolana; ha generado una deuda pública que es diez veces superior a la que existía en 2003; ha creado un sistema bancario que está colapsándose; y una industria petrolífera nacionalizada (que es la mayor fuente de ingresos al Estado) que está en claro declive, y un largo listado de “calamidades”, afirmó Navarro.

Veamos los datos, señaló Navarro. El déficit público de Venezuela representa, según el Fondo Monetario Internacional, “no el 20% del PIB, sino el 7,4%. En cuanto a la supuesta hipertrofia de la deuda pública en Venezuela, ésta representa el 51,3% del PIB, un porcentaje que es menor que el promedio de deuda pública de la Unión Europea (82,5% del PIB), y menor del objetivo al cual aspira la UE (el 60% del PIB). En cuanto al colapso de la industria petrolera, la cota de producción de petróleo es la que los países productores de petróleo, la OPEC, han acordado. Y su disminución en las exportaciones de petróleo a EEUU responde a una decisión política del gobierno Chávez que intenta diversificar sus exportaciones y no centrarlas en un número reducido de países. Tal reducción en las exportaciones a EUU no tiene nada que ver con ningún colapso”.

Semejante manipulación y falsedad –agregó– “aparece también cuando Moisés Naím habla de la hipertrofia del sector público. En realidad, y tal como muestra Mark Weisbrot (del cual extraigo esta información), el porcentaje de empleo público en Venezuela es aproximadamente un 18,4% de la población empleada, inferior al existente en Francia, Finlandia, Dinamarca, Suecia y Noruega”.

Weisbrot se refiere a la elevada inflación venezolana, pero recuerda que el gobierno Chávez ha podido reducirla del 28,2% al 18%, sin reducir el gasto público social. Por el contrario, durante los últimos diez años, el gobierno ha aumentado tal gasto un 60%”.

La pobreza ha pasado a ser de un 71% de la población en 1996 a un 21% en 2010, siendo especialmente acentuada la reducción en la pobreza extrema, que pasó de ser un 40% en 1996 a un 7,3% en 2010.

Rebelión ha publicado este artículo con el permiso del autor mediante una licencia de Creative Commons, respetando su libertad para publicarlo en otras fuentes.

En fotos, extraordinario homenaje del pueblo de Venezuela a su líder Hugo Chávez.

Foto Prensa Presidencial

Más de dos millones de venezolanos se desplazaron para dar su último adiós al presidente Hugo Chávez en su capilla ardiente, aguardando en fila hasta nueve horas este jueves, mientras siguen llegando los 33 jefes de Estado y de gobierno esperados para el funeral del viernes.

Vestido impecablemente de traje verde olivo y corbata negra, coronado con su emblemática boina roja, Chávez, con el rostro sereno y el rigor de la muerte, yace en un ataúd de madera semi-abierto, instalado en la Academia Militar, en Caracas.

“No me quiero ir de aquí, aunque me ponga enfermo de tanto esperar para verlo”, dice a la AFP Pedro Yánez, trabajador de la alcaldía sureña de Ciudad Piar, que dejó a su esposa y tres hijos en casa para viajar a Caracas.

El gobierno pidió comprensión porque no todos podrán acceder a la capilla ardiente, abierta de forma ininterrumpida desde el miércoles en la noche.

“Muy impresionado al verle, me vinieron todos los recuerdos de lo que hemos hecho juntos a lo largo de 14 años gracias a él”, explica Chanel Arroyo, de 34 años, conductor.

(Con información de AFP)

Foto Prensa Presidencial

Foto Prensa Presidencial

Foto Prensa Presidencial

Foto Prensa Presidencial

Foto Prensa Presidencial

Foto Prensa Presidencial

Foto Prensa Presidencial

Foto AFP

Foto AFP

Foto AFP