Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Rebel Women in the Zapatista Movement

Hey everyone!

Here is a link to a news article published about recent meetings by Zapatista women. They congregated to tell their stories as female activists-- and to organize against the exclusion of women (especially lesbians) from political decision-making in the EZLN-- while men were ordered to stay at home and tend to the families and farms.

http://www.latinamericapress.org/article.asp?lanCode=1&artCode=5507

Here also is an image I found from google.images. Not necessarily from the particular meeting mentioned in the article, but just to give you a visual.

Abrazos,
Jenna

KPFA segment on our class topic!

http://www.againstthegrain.org/

go to the against the grain website. in case you didn't listen in today, it was a great prep for our class tomorrow.

adam

Great Mexico NPR pieces

Mexico Focuses on Police Who Aid Drug Trade- Feb. 11th 2008 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18873251

Mexican President to Meet with Schwarzenegger- Feb. 13th 2008 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18937750

Where the Candidates Stand on Illegal Immigration- Feb. 1st 2008 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18615528


Border Battles, Immigration Issues and You- Jan. 14th 2008 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18071533

Most of these are pretty short, say, a few minutes, and they're all (as all NPR pieces are) interesting and informative. I recommend listening to them while cooking dinner, driving, or something like that.

Enjoy!

paz
Madison

Social movements in Mexico

Angie Rodriguez
PACS135

Hi all!
I'm posting a link to a news story about the social mobilization that is currently taking place in Mexico to resist the right's attempts to implement neoliberal reforms and privatize PEMEX, the state-owned oil company.


http://www.ueinternational.org/Mexico_info/mlna_articles.php?id=129#798


For all of you who speak Spanish, check out the website of La Jornada (Mexico's progressive newspaper) at    www.jornada.unam.mx/   for updated information about the Zapatistas, the civic resistance movement against Calderon's illegitimate government, and more. 

And because sometimes an image says more than a 1000 words, I'm also posting some pictures of the resistance movement that followed the fraudulent 2006 Mexican elections. Some of the pictures are mine, and some have been collected via the internet. 
              Peace,

Over one million people protesting at "Zocalo" Mexico City's main square


People calling Fox  " traitor to democracy", 2006.


Protesting Calderon's militarization of the country





"Espurio" means illegitimate

"Traitors to democracy"


"The Revolution of the 21st century will rise up in Oaxaca", message painted on a wall in Oaxaca, 2006.


"I voted and I won't shut up"  slogan at a concert organized at UNAM campus in 2006



The new struggle "No to the privatization of PEMEX"

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Peruvian farmers protest free trade!

http://www.elnuevod ia.com/diario/ noticia/portada/ noticias/ arranca_manana_ la_huelga_ magisterial/ 366268

BACKGROUND:With the US maintaining subsidies on its genetically modified,industrially produced, pesticide treated treated field crops and factoryfarmed meat, dairy, and egg products, Peruvian family farmers will bedriven out of business by the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement, ratified byCongress in late 2007. This will lead to forced migration of farmers,destruction of ecologically sustainable traditional methods ofagriculture, increased profits for inhumane factory farms, more farmersgrowing coca for the global cocaine trade, and rural displacement andunemployment creating a new workforce for sweatshop and corporateplantation exploitation. Peru's farmers are being murdered in the streetsas they protest this destructive policy!

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton BOTH supported the Peru FTA! (and McCain supports EVERY FTA!)--------

Peru Declares State of Emergency on Farm ProtestsFeb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Peru's government declared a state of emergency after a farmers' protest left at least four dead and more than 700 under arrest.Farmers called the nationwide protest to push for state subsidies as part of a free-trade agreement with the U.S., for lower prices for fertilizers andfor a halt to farm seizures by banks. Peru, the world's largest exporter of organic coffee, asparagus and paprika, boosted agricultural exports to theU.S. and China by 10 percent to $2 billion last year."The agreements we've reached don't establish amounts or deadlines,'' saidEnrique Malaga, president of the National Irrigation Board, which is organizing the protest. "The government has lost all credibility. ''Protesters in the southern Andes blocked the railway line to the Incacitadel of Macchu Pichu, Peru's biggest tourist attraction, yesterday,forcing the suspension of the service, Orient Express Hotels Inc. unitPeru Rail said in an e-mailed statement.<<http://www.bloomber g.com/apps/ news?pid= 20601086&sid=ajtlepQBdSAg&refer=lati>http://www.bloomber g.com/apps/ news?pid= 20601086&sid=ajtlepQBdSAg&refer=latin_america><http://www.bloomber g.com/apps/ news?pid= 20601086&sid=ajtlepQBdSAg&refer=latin>http://www.bloomber g.com/apps/ news?pid= 20601086&sid=ajtlepQBdSAg&refer=latin_america

Farmers strike turns violent in Peru; four dead

Posted : Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:54:00 GMTLima - The second day of nationwide protests by farmers in Peru spiralled into violence with two protestors shot by police and another falling to his death trying to elude tear gas shells. Transport was paralyzed in the departments of Ayacucho, Arequipa, Cusco and several other parts of the country because of the strike that began Monday, when police said one farmer was shot by an angry motorist.The unions called the strike to pressure the government . . . . (on)measures to alleviate the impact of a new trade agreement with the UnitedStates.

Amazing Cuba Film

The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (2006)

This is a film about some central issues from our discussion on Cuba and the agricultural revolution. It is very well done and informative, as well as extremely inspiring!
I unfortunately don't know (haven't looked into) where you can get it, but I at least want to make it known to everyone so that you can seek it out (I was lucky enough to be shown it by a friend). Let us know if you find it/buy it.

Thanks!
paz
Madison
madisonsheffield@gmail.com

Aracelia_ week 5

Aracelia Alvarez
PACS 135
Reading Response week 5
Cuba!
The case of Cuba, is indeed, a remarkable example to the rest of the industrialized nations that with basic technology it is possible to create a socially just and sustainable future. Cuba defies U.S. approaches to food production, distribution, and consumption.

What exactly is the foco strategy?

On page 105 Raby writes that… “down to the present it (the Cuban Communist Party) continues to express Cuban internationalism in a radically different context”. I was unclear as to what this means.

The case of Cuba is important to study, but from the beginning M-26-7 was able to take advantage of an anti-imperialist sentiment in the rural areas. Today, urbanization is the norm- we have been far removed from the land for a long time, so that changes the conditions drastically.

What is the role of CDR’s? And what makes Cubans believe that they are spies? How is dissidence or anti-revolutionary ideology handled? How is the opposition dealt with?

How do the Cuban popular masses feel about Cuba today? What is their perspective on
capitalism and the U.S? In the U.S. we hear the opinions of those who have fled and are part of the opposition, but not enough from the common people who have improved quality of life?

Did Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have a relationship prior to Chavez winning the presidency in
Venezuela?
VIVA FIDEL! VIVA LA REVOLUCION! VIVA CUBA!

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Fidel resigns as president of Cuba!

What a coincidence, as this is our week on Cuba! 

Fidel announced his resignation last night, saying he was "not in a physical condition" to continue as president and commander-in-chief but promised to remain a "soldier of ideas". What does this mean for the future of socialist Cuba? Will Raul (Fidel's brother) or another revolutionary continue Cuba down the same path? Or will the US take the opportunity to intervene in their affairs? What's interesting is that no demonstrations calling for change were reported in Havana, in contrast to celebrations by anti-Castro exiles in Miami. Sounds like the Cuban people are pleased with their leadership... shouldn't the US respect the Cubans' right to self-determination? Check out the link below to read a BBC article about the US's position on Fidel's resignation, as well as the role of the EU and China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7253491.stm

BY ALLISON STINSON

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Candidates and Imperialism

I came across this article in the Huffington Post the other day and I thought it was an interesting tie in to our discussion about the presidential candidates on Wednesday. -Shan Shiels


by Sam Sedaei
Unapologetic Imperialism
2/11/08

During a campaign stop last month, someone in the audience rose to ask John McCain about Iraq. The questioner began to share some background facts before posing the question, saying "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years." Before he got the chance to ask the question, McCain interrupted him by saying, "make that a hundred!" "Is that..." the questioner gets cut off again; "We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years," McCain said. "We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

During his farewell speech at CPAC, Mitt Romney made a similar remark about America's military ventures abroad. He made the point that because the United States has never taken land during its occupations, they should not only be condemned, but celebrated as the sign that we're "the greatest country on earth." The ironic part of the statement was not the fact that it was factually inaccurate as throughout the past century, the United States has taken land for its 700 military bases abroad that stretch from Australia and Saudi Arabia to Eastern Africa and South America. Neither is the most ironic part of the statement the fact that Romney was quoting Shimon Peres's remarks about America, who coincidentally was at the time of the statement the leader of a country that itself has maintained a 4-decade long military occupation and home demolitions in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, all with the help of one-fifth of the United States' entire foreign aid and vetoes of just about every UN Security Council resolutions every year. But making that very statement was rooted in Romney's complete misunderstanding of how America's military ventures are viewed abroad.

John McCain has served this country for two decades and was a prisoner of war for five years in Vietnam. And although the value of his service in the Vietnam War that should have never been waged is not determined, his willingness to serve has been extraordinary. But his statement about permanent occupation represents a complete lack of understanding of the differences between occupations that have been different in numerous aspects such as the time of occupation, reasons for occupation, country of occupation, international support for the occupation and the impact of occupation on America's standing in the world.

Senator McCain's reasoning is very similar to those of most other conservatives. They believe that "Terrorism" is an extreme interpretation of Islam and committed by people who are inherently "evil" and whose sole purpose is to cause America harm, because we're "the greatest country" on earth. "They hate us for our freedoms," we're told. And because they are evil, American military action and occupation in the name of annihilating the evil would have the support of the people around the world and cause no anger by indigenous populations. They attribute all of the violence in Iraq to Al Qaeda, which nicely fits into these conservatives' narrative. Based on this analysis, McCain would argue that America's staying infinitely in the heart of Arabia would cause no anger or resentment and can lead to the consequent pacification and ultimate neutralization of and domination over the people of Iraq.

It's a nice narrative, except that it's not true. The conservative narrative has been written not to express the realities of the challenges we face. It is rather designed at the predetermined aim of meeting the following criteria: a) to exclude any act of terrorism committed by the United States and any of its closest allies; b) paint all terrorists in history as Muslims; c) take any elements of rationality out of anything that can be identified as a "cause" for terrorism, and hence, avoid having to address America's responsibility in provoking violence; and e) provide the United States with an implied moral authority and the justification to take preemptive action against anyone it considers "terrorists" without defining what constitutes "terrorism."

But reality is far from this narrative. For one, the notion that terrorists of any kind hate the United States for our freedoms is ridiculous. I lived in Iran for seventeen years, for ten years of which I went to public schools where the teachers are forced to teach every single anti-American piece of propaganda ever produced. Never have I heard a single teacher make the case that America's freedom is a reason for resentment.

As for John McCain's remarks, there are several aspects of it that are based on plainly wrong assumptions. For one, the occupations in South Korea and Europe during World War II were a part of a coalition effort. It was the consequence of a conclusion and agreement by the members of this coalition that they were fighting a common enemy: fascism. That consensus and America's military actions during the war as an "empire by invitation" made the occupations more acceptable by the occupied people. The occupation in Iraq, however, was done without any such consensus or deliberate effort to understand and reach agreement on the nature of the threat. Instead, America embarked on a unilateral mission to invade a sovereign country before the international body and U.N. inspectors finished their job after dismissing old allies as "old Europe" and withdrawing The United States from Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty, Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the International Court on War Criminals.

Following the invasion, there may have been a short time when the people of Iraq may have thought that America actually had good intentions. But as time passed and Americans refused to leave Iraq even after the capture and execution of Saddam, the indigenous people began to have a very different view point about the occupation. It began to look like the Americans were no longer there for the sake of the Iraqi people; after all, it's really hard to see an occupation force as liberators when the occupiers close off the streets in your own city and tell you not to go into a certain region because the Americans are there and your very presence poses a threat to them. McCain implies that there will be a day when the U.S. forces can have a presence in Iraq and not face hostilities. Such a scenario is impossible when sixty percent of the Iraqis - not Al Qaeda or "terrorists," but Iraqi citizens - now say that it is okay to shoot Americans.

There is something utterly ignorant about McCain's understanding of how American actions are seen throughout the world. Although I don't support Ron Paul, his presence in this election has been of great value in the sense that he has repeatedly asked questions throughout various debates that have led us to put ourselves in the shoes of those countries we occupy. How would you feel if a foreign country were to invade the United States in the name of liberating us, build military bases in Florida and California and declare New York City "green zone" where no Americans are allowed unless they go through multiple foreign-operated check points? Many people have strong religious convictions in the Middle East and find America's military presence in the holy land as a dagger in their hearts. It was America's presence in Saudi Arabia - and not our freedoms - that played a major role in motivating the highjackers to give their lives in attacks against "the infidels" on September 11, 2001.

Throughout this campaign, various candidates have gotten away with defining themselves as they have wished with little challenge to their claims. When Hillary Clintons claims experience while having served in public office shorter than all the other candidates who ran on the democratic side, the media would rather go along and define her as the "candidate of experience" instead of challenging her claim. When Mitt Romney claims economy as his strong suit, the media passively accepts that self-definition instead of challenging him for essentially supporting the same kind of supply-side economics that has cost America thousands of jobs and led to the current economic downturn that we face today. So when John McCain claims foreign policy experience, it is not surprising that the media is once again failing to question the merits of that claim even when he makes the kind of a remark that is rooted in his utter lack of understanding of the forces that have caused America's standing to take such a vertical dive over the past seven years and led to unlikely alliances against the United States among hostile powers.
John McCain may believe that America's presence in Iraq will eventually lead to over 1.8 billion Muslims around the world to roll over and accept Christian presence on holy land. But in reality, as long as America does not chart a course that would lead to self-government in Iraq and withdrawal of all American forces not just from Iraq but also from Saudi Arabia and other sensitive regions from around the world, Americans will remain a target for attacks at home and abroad and used by terrorist organizations to recruit disillusioned Muslims to join in violence against the American forces abroad or citizens here in the United States.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

U.S. backs Exxon in Venezuela assets battle

Just to go off of what we were talking about today... I put in bold some of the topics that we were talking about. Cheers.


U.S. backs Exxon in Venezuela assets battle

Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:51pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Wednesday backed Exxon Mobil Corp's effort to win compensation from Venezuela for seized assets in a case that has prompted the OPEC nation to threaten to cut off oil supplies to America.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a foe of the United States, says Exxon court victories that resulted in $12 billion in Venezuelan assets being frozen over the seizure is part of an "economic war" to unseat him directed by the Bush administration.

Despite its support for Exxon, the United States denies it is working to oust Chavez and has distanced itself from the specific legal case.

"We fully support the efforts of Exxon Mobil to get a just and fair compensation package for their assets according to the standards of international law," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

"But we are not involved in that dispute. It is something that has to be litigated between Venezuela and Exxon Mobil and various courts around the world," he added.

Chavez stopped oil exports to Exxon on Tuesday, escalating Venezuela's multibillion-dollar fight with the U.S. company over his nationalization of a project last year that was part-owned by Exxon and Britain's BP.

Separately, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that U.S. officials were looking into whether a recently reported deal between Venezuela's state-run oil company and Iran violates U.S. law.

Rice said she was examining issues raised by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen about a reported $1 billion deal late last year between Venezuela's state-run Petroleos de Venezuela SA, which owns the Citgo subsidiary in the United States, and Iran's Petropars, a unit of the National Iranian Oil Company.

Ros-Lehtinen wrote to Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last week asking they probe whether Citgo benefited from the company's deal with Iran. She also asked whether the deal violates the "letter or the spirit" of the U.S. Iran Sanctions Act, intended to deter investment in Iran.

"I want to thank you for raising the question. Of course, we're looking into it," Rice told Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, during an appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A Citgo spokesman in Houston could not be reached for comment.

A group of 21 Republican legislators, including Ros-Lehtinen, is also looking to pass a resolution that would add Venezuela to a list of countries that support terrorism.

The motion requested an investigation into whether Venezuela could be defined as providing sanctuary for terrorists. Chavez's critics accuse him of allowing Colombia's Marxist guerrillas to cross the porous border into Venezuela.

Chavez, who opposes the war in Iraq, brushed aside the accusations and said the United States should examine its own record.

"The first country that has to be on the list for supporting terrorism is called the United States," he said. "The first on the list of people is George W. Bush."

Britain, where a court issued a temporary ruling in favor of Exxon over Chavez's seizure, also sought to distance itself from the Exxon case on Wednesday to avoid harming ties with the OPEC nation.

"The judiciary is independent. It's important to avoid that this adversely affects the good ties we have with Venezuela," British Ambassador Catherine Royle told reporters after dozens of Venezuelans protested the court ruling outside the embassy in Caracas.

Exxon and fellow American oil company ConocoPhillips quit Venezuela over a wave of nationalizations last year. BP was one of several European companies that struck deals to remain in the seized projects as minority partners.

Corn Ethanol

If anyone wants to get a better understanding of the environmental and agricultural impacts of corn ethanol, then read the Council on Hemispheric Affairs report.

http://www.coha.org/2007/06/12/maize-of-deception-how-corn-based-ethanol-can-lead-to-starvation-and-environmental-disaster-2/

Reading summary Week 4

Aracelia Alvarez
PACS 135 Feb 13, 2008
Reading Summary Week 4

Burbach/Tarbell: “Imperial Overstretch” and Subcmte. Marcos “4th WW”

The idea of imperial overstretch is interesting choice of words, although I would argue that it is not a new concept. Marx, Lenin, and others wrote about capitalism reaching its limits by arriving at imperialism. My criticism of “Imperial Overstretch” is that it focused too much on Bush and his presidency. It is not only Bush and his regime that have developed U.S. military prowess. The alliance of capitalists, politicians, CEO’s, corporations, neo-cons, and many Democrats for that matter have been complacent as the imbroglio develops. Though by no means do I defend or promote Bush’s politics, he is not the first to speak of spreading democracy or liberal ideals across the globe. This is a game of hegemony, and Bush is not immune to it. As was proposed by the readings, this is an “empire of deceit” bent on economic control by any means necessary.
The mobilization of popular forces as a “second superpower” is inspiring. But let us not be naïve- the forces we challenge are powerful as well. Hegemony and apathy still reigns supreme. I am hesitant to believe that in the U.S., a majority of the population and many in industrialized nations (the privileged classes)will be willing to sacrifice comforts and commodities for the possibility of ‘another world’. Sorry for the cynicism! The writings of Subcomandante Marcos are inspiring, but he is preaching to the choir. The intergalactic, planetary wars can be as easily contested as Al Gore’s preaching about Global Warming. Marcos suggests that resistance is being woven by those who have been excluded from “modernity” but I would argue that many have been resisting from within modernity too.

Hardt & Negri: Multitude

I need elaboration on the distinction between the postmodern phase and Globalization.
The permanency of war and police and the idea of a zero-tolerance society make perfect sense in connection to biopower. The NYPD and LAPD have both launched zero-tolerance policies, in the name of anti-terrorism. These policies have heightened the ability of police and military to act as state informants, state terrorists, and mercenary forces within U.S. boundaries and abroad. Meanwhile federal policies have diminished so-called civil rights that were designed to provide citizens with fundamental constitutional protections. As Hardt and Negri point out, there is an inherent weakness in considering human rights- humans rely on much more than rights (ie: food, water, air, social relationships, etc). Just as the global and economic interests of empire rely on networks, so do the various forms of resistance- the Zapatista struggle is one example.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Zapatistas lose supporters in Mexico

(in relation to 'positive' techniques of counterinsurgency strategies)

By MANUEL DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 7, 1:08 PM ET

POLHO, Mexico - Nearly 200 families have abandoned the Zapatista rebel movement in one of its strongholds, turning to the government for aid at a time when the insurgents are complaining about the loss of outside support.

On Wednesday, each family received initial payments of $43 in a ceremony with Salvador Escobedo, a top official with the federal government's Social Development Department. The government is promising similar payments every two months, as well as a school and medical center.

The ceremony in Polho, long a backbone of the Zapatista movement, appeared to be the most prominent desertion from the insurgency since 2004, when about 400 families in the unofficial rebel capital of La Realidad broke away to accept government help, dividing the village in two.

The rebels have forbidden any aid from state or federal officials that they regard as illegitimate. Instead, they have created a series of self-declared autonomous communities such as Polho with their own schools, clinics and aid networks.

Community leader Javier Luna said the families decided to abandon the insurgents because they needed a government school, access to better medical care and other essentials.

They apparently will continue to live in the village of several thousand people, where rebels and non-rebels will go to different schools and clinics — a pattern in several other towns.

The Zapatista rebels staged an armed uprising in 1994 in the southern state of Chiapas, and built an international following. After initially battling the Zapatistas, the government turned to offers of negotiations and aid, which have gradually eroded rebel support in many communities.

In December, Zapatista leader Subcomandante Marcos said he was withdrawing to the shadows, ending nearly two years of public appearances aimed at bolstering a grass-roots leftist movement across Mexico.

In making the announcement, he complained that the once widespread national and international support for the Zapatistas has been "insignificant or null" recently.




wiki characteristics of late capitalism

Among the characteristics of late capitalism (or the 'third age' of capitalism after freely-competitive capitalism and monopoly capitalism) are said to be:

  • the hypertrophy of the state, and systematic attempts by the state to moderate economic fluctuations as well as exerting more and more social controls;
  • the co-optation and integration of trade union and oppositional political movements into the state apparatuses;
  • the globalisation of financial capital, commercial capital and production capital;
  • a third technological revolution (electronics, synthetics, computerisation, biotechnology) and accelerated technological innovation;
  • accelerated turnover of capital and the pressure to engage in comprehensive economic planning of investments;
  • An increase in the rate of surplus value attributable mainly to increased productivity of labour;
  • the hyper-concentration and centralisation of capital ownership and management on a world scale, in giant industrial and banking corporations;
  • the corrosion and breakdown of all traditional social institutions by market forces, leading globally to a succession of continual wars, armed conflicts and unarmed social conflicts;
  • an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor, within and between countries, as strong market actors defeat the weaker ones;
  • the growth of "excess capital" (overcapitalisation) and "excess capacity", meaning that much additional capital is no longer invested in expanding production, but diverted to trade and capital accumulation based on already existing physical and financial assets - with obvious effects on employment opportunities.

Monday, February 11, 2008

US Imperial Overstretch

Venezuela president threatens US with oil embargo
Caracas, Feb 11 : President Hugo Chavez has warned he will cut off Venezuela's oil flow to the US if the latter launches an economic war against his country via firms like Exxon Mobil.
Chavez delivered the warning on his weekly radio and television show "Alo Presidente" Sunday after Exxon Mobil Corp won court rulings to freeze $12 billion worth assets of state-run oil firm Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), EFE news agency reported Monday."If you freeze our assets and cause us harm, we will cause you harm. Take note of that Mr Bush, Mr Danger," the Venezuelan leader said referring to US President George W. Bush.In June 2007, Chavez had forced all foreign oil companies to transfer about 60 percent of their business in Venezuela to PDVSA. Many companies like TotalFinaElf of France, Statoil of Norway, BP of Britain and Chevron of the US accepted the new conditions, but Exxon Mobil and the third-largest US oil firm, Conoco Phillips, sought international arbitrage and withdrew from the country.Houston-based Exxon Mobil Friday said it had won court orders in Britain and the Netherlands to freeze up to $12 billion in PDVSA assets. Reacting to the US firm's announcement, Chavez said if an economic war was unleashed against Venezuela "the price of oil will touch $200 per barrel.""And more than one country is ready to go along with us in that economic war. You're not going to frighten us and you're not going to dissuade us," he said.Chavez went on to say that Exxon Mobil was one of the firms that were on the "spear point of imperialism" and he included it among the "imperialist bandits, white collar thieves, corruptors and topplers of governments".Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said the freeze would not affect PDVSA's operating capability.Venezuela supplies about eight percent of US's total annual oil consumption and it is believed an oil embargo will lead to an adverse impact on the world's largest economy.Relations between the two countries have long been strained with Chavez accusing Washington of being behind the failed coup attempt against him in 2002. The Venezuelan leaders also called Bush "the devil" at the UN General Assembly

Friday, February 8, 2008

Scholar: US sought help in Bolivia (to keep tabs on Venezuelan and Cuban workers in Bolivia)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/bolivia_us;_ylt=AgKgu7Pp6fvNdLc0iOCzv79vaA8F

LA PAZ, Bolivia - An American scholar said Friday that an official at the U.S. Embassy asked him to keep tabs on Venezuelan and Cuban workers in Bolivia. Washington said that any such request would be an error and against U.S. policy.

"I was shocked," Fulbright scholar Alex van Schaick told The Associated Press. "I mean, th man's asking me to spy for the U.S. government." Van Schaick is one of six Fulbright scholars doing research in the country.

The U.S. Embassy in La Paz issued a statement Friday saying that "some routine information sessions about security given to certain American citizens included incorrect information. As soon as this was brought to our attention, appropriate measures were taken to assure that these errors would not be repeated."

U.S. State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said in Washington that any such request would have been a mistake.

"Worldwide, we adhere to a strict understanding with the Peace Corps that their volunteers are not permitted to act in any sort of intelligence capacity," Gallegos said. "If anyone suggested that any members of either group provide information outside the scope of their work or positions, it was an error and is not U.S. government policy."

Also Friday, ABC News reported a claim that the same official made a similar request to a group of Peace Corps volunteers last year.

In a statement, the Peace Corps said that as a matter of law and policy its volunteers cannot be asked to gather intelligence for the U.S. government.

"Any connection between the Peace Corps and the intelligence community would seriously compromise the ability of the Peace Corps to develop and maintain the trust and confidence of the people in the host countries we serve," the agency said.

Van Schaick, 23, said the official made the request during a Nov. 5 security briefing at the embassy.

"He asked me that if I should encounter Venezuelans or Cubans while in the field — doctors, field workers — that I should report to the embassy with their names ... and where they're at, their location," van Schaick said.

Van Schaick said he reported the incident Thursday to Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca.

President Evo Morales, a close ally of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro, has repeatedly accused the U.S. Embassy of plotting against his government, a charge embassy officials strenuously deny.

Both Venezuela and Cuba maintain a visible presence in Bolivia. More than 1,500 Cuban doctors provide free medical care here in South America's poorest country, while Venezuelan pilots fly Morales around the country in loaned Venezuelan helicopters.

Van Schaick, who arrived in Bolivia last October, said he is using his Fulbright grant to study land use issues among largely indigenous farmers in Bolivia's eastern lowlands.

link to some history

i found an amazing site with WAY to much information to absorb. there are a world of links to help you understand any historical era you wish to brush up on.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html

on the left is a green column with different topics. i found the sections with socialism, imperialism, US power and 20C Latin America the most useful.



here are a few of the links that i found the most intriguing! they are very simple and clear summaries and outlines of topics discussed or referred to in class. i promise, all are informative, short and easy to read :)


Guides to types of socialism
http://web.archive.org/web/20001017174300/http://www.dsausa.org/rl/Docs/Lingo.html

Timeline of US intervention is Latin America
http://web.archive.org/web/20001205231700/http://kuhttp.cc.ukans.edu/cwis/organizations/las/interven.html

Intervention in Nicaragua
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cc101.htm

The crisis of US hegemony in the 21st century
http://lap.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/34/1/5
(this 4 pg article will require you to log in. BUT! you can go to the berkeley library website and use their address as a 'proxy' through your computer so you can access the site for free!)

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

reading summary 3

Aracelia Alvarez
01-06-08
Reading Summary Week 2-3


I can see where the combination of the multitude and the 3rd force poses a potential viable force for a democratic society. I appreciate the inclusion of youth, women’s and indigenous social movements in the readings, because they have always been present but not given the credit they deserve.

I am weary about the assumption that a democratic society is what “we” should be striving for. First, I think it is necessary to develop the idea of democracy and what the term or concept really means. Are Indigenous and Non-Indigenous communities striving for this – or this is a western assumption?

The Zapatistas state that they want a new world which includes them, but what would that look like. How would a world or society or community of autonomous collectives look like? Has this been attempted? What are the positive and negative aspects of such a society?

I am in favor of agrarian reform or land redistribution, how can we get this done without violence?

What is the role of the left or the multitude in the U.S? What are we doing to make a new world possible? Has the left been engaged in the idea of the multitude?

Can we elaborate on the Hardt’s idea of “biopolitical production”?

I would like to learn or do a comparative analysis of “Network Struggles” and the use of creativity, communication, and self-organized cooperation as opposed to the democratic centralist principles of past movements.

Is Nationalism a thing of the past? Has it been discarded because it is too narrow?
How has Globalization changed the idea of nationality?

Why has Theology of Liberation become such a force in social movements in Latin America?

Do Indigenous communities recognize Marxism as an applicable theory? I argue that Marxism is a European construction and Indigenous forms of knowledge may be better tools for anti-imperialism struggles.



Note: The Raby book was out of stock in the campus bookstore and at Ned’s so I will read that asap.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Mexican Farmers Protest End of Corn-Import Taxes

Mexican Farmers Protest End of Corn-Import Taxes

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: February 1, 2008
MEXICO CITY — Tens of thousands of farmers clogged the streets of the capital on Thursday to protest the end of tariffs on corn from the United States, warning that the elimination of trade barriers could drive them out of business and lead more Mexicans to migrate north.

The farmers brought a herd of cattle and more than 50 tractors to make their point, jamming the historic center and blocking the central artery, Paseo de la Reforma. One rowdy group burned a tractor.

Stretching for more than four miles, the march was a sea of tanned faces, cowboy hats, flags and calloused hands gripping banners with slogans like “Without farms there is no country.” The police said at least 50,000 people joined the protest; organizers put the number at 100,000.

“We cannot compete against this monster, the United States,” said one farmer, Enrique Barrera Pérez, who is 44 and works about five acres in Yucatán. “It’s not worth the trouble to plant. We don’t have the subsidies. We don’t have the machinery.”

One the nation’s largest labor coalitions, the National Union of Workers, joined dozens of farmers’ organizations like the National Campesino Confederation to finance the march. The organizers bused people in from as far away as Chihuahua in the north and Yucatán on the Gulf Coast.

On Jan. 1, the last tariffs on corn, beans, sugar and milk were lifted under the North American Free Trade Agreement, completing a 14-year transition to an open market between Mexico, the United States and Canada.

Since then, Mexican leaders of farm coalitions and other unionists have been calling for the government to renegotiate the treaty, putting them at odds with President Felipe Calderón, a staunch free-trade advocate.

The farmers worry that a surge of inexpensive corn could doom millions of peasants who farm plots of less than 12 acres. They also complain that the government has done almost nothing to prepare farmers for the open competition.

Much of the $1.4 billion in annual aid for farmers, they say, has gone to large agricultural businesses in the northern states rather than to small farms.

“We are mostly angry with the Mexican government,” said Victor Suárez, the leader of ANEC, a farmers’ coalition. “They have left the small producers to fend for themselves.”

Opposition politicians have also seized on corn— along with an unpopular proposal to allow foreign investment in the state oil monopoly — to whip up sentiment against the administration.

Mr. Calderón has fought back. In a speech on Jan. 7, he declared that the free-trade agreement had brought Mexicans lower prices for goods while increasing exports fourfold, even when oil is excluded.

“As with all agreements of this nature, the treaty presents challenges and opportunities, but in general it has been beneficial to Mexicans,” he said.

Yet the renewed debate seems to have touched a nerve in Mexico, where corn was first domesticated 5,000 years ago and the culture revolves around its consumption. Underlying the political discourse is a widespread sentiment that poor Mexicans have benefited little from free-trade policies, while giant businesses have reaped profits.

In practice, however, nothing changed on Jan. 1. Mexico had been gradually dropping its tariffs on corn since 1994, when they stood at more than 200 percent, and most of the corn imports in recent years had entered without tariffs under import quotas. What is more, the corn from the United States is yellow corn, used to feed livestock, rather than the white corn Mexican farmers produce for tortillas.

Some opponents of the treaty, however, say a spike in demand for American corn to produce ethanol has protected Mexico’s farmers so far. Over the long haul, these critics say, small farmers in Mexico cannot face off with the Americans’ heavily subsidized and mechanized farms.

“How are you going to compete with the enormous subsidized farms in the United States and Canada?” said Francisco Hernández Juárez, the president of the National Union of Workers. “It’s totally unequal.”

Agricultural officials here agree that the peasant farmers cannot hope to stay in the game. They say four-fifths of the nation’s 2.6 million small farms have plots so little that they produce only enough to live on and never market their goods.

“Our small producers are not affected by the free trade agreement,” said Marco Sifuentes, a spokesman for the agriculture department. “They don’t participate in the market.”

Francisco López Tostado, an assistant secretary of agriculture, said the answer lay in peasant farmers’ forming large competitive agricultural cooperatives, a policy the administration has pursued.

Several marchers who farm less than five acres said they no longer planted corn or beans except to feed their own families. Even with corn prices high, they said, the high costs of fuel and fertilizer had made it unprofitable to market their corn.

Others with larger farms said they could still make a living, but they feared that imports from the United States would eventually drive the prices down to a point where they could not compete.

Francisco Javier Ríos, 66, a farmer from Bahia de Banderas, in Nayarit State, said he planted 15 acres with white corn each year. Depending on prices and weather, he can make between $3,000 and $4,000 of profit. He worries, however, that imports from the United States will cut his thin profit margin.

“The free market should exist, but it should be more level,” he said. “To compete against them is unfair to us because we don’t get the same subsidies. Our costs are 100 percent ours.”