Video: Bolivia in Transition

15 July, 2009 — Bolivia Rising

In January 2009, Bolivians held a national Referendum to approve a peoples constitution under Evo Morales. The country, historically polarized by the strength of the wealthy landowners and the struggles of the indigenous masses, suffered vicious opposition to the proposed changes. In this documentary, the impact of the new Constitution is shown through two very different realities; one of courage, the courage to bring about change vs. the culture of fear. Interviews with people from all sectors of society sheds light on the contrasts of opinion and, finally, demonstrates Bolivia’s transformation towards a more dignified and just society. Witness a nation write their own history as its people rediscover their identity.

Bolivia under Evo Morales, has demonstrated to the world that courage can overcome the culture of fear. That people united under the banner of fraternity, peace and justice can never be defeated; Bolivia’s new constitution is the result of that victory.

Part I

Part II

Afghanistan War Resister to “Put the War on Trial” by Dahr Jamail

14 July, | T r u t h o u t

US Army Specialist Victor Agosto served a 13-month deployment in Iraq with the 57th Expeditionary Signal Battalion. “What I did there, I know I contributed to death and human suffering,” Agosto told Truthout from Fort Hood, in Killeen, Texas, in May, “It’s hard to quantify how much I caused, but I know I contributed to it.”

His experience in Iraq, coupled with educating himself about US foreign policy and international law, has led Agosto to refuse to deploy to Afghanistan. “It’s a matter of what I’m willing to live with,” he said of his recent decision, “I’m not willing to participate in this occupation, knowing it is completely wrong.”

Agosto’s lawyer, James Branum, who is also the legal adviser to the GI Rights Hotline and co-chair of the Military Law Task Fore, told Truthout during a phone interview on July 10 that, contrary to mainstream opinion that believes Afghanistan to be a “justified” war, the invasion and ongoing occupation are actually in violation of the US Constitution and international law.

Continue reading

The Counter-Revolution Will Not be Tweeted By George Ciccariello-Maher

5 July, 2009 — venezuelanalysis.com

The recent street rebellions against the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran were touted by many as the first baptism-by-fire of Twitter as a political tool. Celebrity articles abounded for a brief time, before such foolish dreams came crashing back to earth under the weight of a metric ton of misinformation, unsubstantiated rumor, and idle gossip.

…And the Tweeters Fell Silent

Any Iranian foolish to put her hopes in this most fickle of constituencies that is the Tweeter must have begun to doubt the wisdom of such an approach as short attention spans inevitably set in and, most devastatingly of all, the death of Michael Jackson stole the headlines. Ahmadinejad couldn’t have planned it better if he had offed MJ himself (in cahoots, perhaps, with South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the other clear beneficiary of Jackson’s untimely demise). Indeed, the Iranian dissidents were the biggest losers of the day, suffering an even worse fate than Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Billy Mays, condemned to historical oblivion by sheer bad timing. But to this list of those suffering from the technophiles’ abandonment of their brief flirtation with the political, we must now add Manuel ‘Mel’ Zelaya, legitimately elected president of Honduras, recently deposed in a barefaced military coup from the far right.

Zelaya, a former centrist who has recently made leftward moves, raised the ire of the entrenched Honduran oligarchy by, among other things, joining the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), a radical counterpoint to U.S.-promoted free trade agreements. His overthrow has been followed by a press blackout, military curfew, and repression in the streets, as hundreds of thousands have rallied to the cause of their former leader, only to meet an iron heel reminiscent of Honduran military regimes of the past (dodging bullets in the street, as the maganificent BoRev puts it, ‘is sort of like Twittering, for poor people’). There have been mass arrests, injuries, and deaths, but some exceptions not withstanding, these Hondurans are nevertheless, to quote one observer, ‘Protesters We Don’t Tweet About.’

Continue reading

Honduran Oligarchy: “The War is Against Chavez” By Ricardo Daher – Aporrea

10 July, 2009 — venezuelanalysis.com

The Honduran de facto government and private media insist on denying the coup d’etat and say that they accept the mediation of Costa Rican president Oscar Arias, but exclude any conversation over the return of Zelaya to the presidency. At the same time they sustain that they are the spearhead of a ‘war’ against the ‘dictatorship of Hugo Chavez.’

The daily newspapers, Heraldo, Tribuna and La Prensa, lead the way in defending the coup d’etat and repeat, almost in the same words, the accusation against the Venezuelan president for his supposed interference. They also promote the withdrawal of Honduras from the ALBA accords, because they claim, ‘it has only benefited the left.’

The headlines of these newspapers and the declarations of the current leaders of the State are a copy of the anti-communist manual of the press campaigns in the decades of the sixties and seventies in the last century.

Continue reading

Honduran Oligarchy: “The War is Against Chavez” By Ricardo Daher – Aporrea

10 July, 2009 — venezuelanalysis.com

The Honduran de facto government and private media insist on denying the coup d’etat and say that they accept the mediation of Costa Rican president Oscar Arias, but exclude any conversation over the return of Zelaya to the presidency. At the same time they sustain that they are the spearhead of a ‘war’ against the ‘dictatorship of Hugo Chavez.’

The daily newspapers, Heraldo, Tribuna and La Prensa, lead the way in defending the coup d’etat and repeat, almost in the same words, the accusation against the Venezuelan president for his supposed interference. They also promote the withdrawal of Honduras from the ALBA accords, because they claim, ‘it has only benefited the left.’

The headlines of these newspapers and the declarations of the current leaders of the State are a copy of the anti-communist manual of the press campaigns in the decades of the sixties and seventies in the last century.

Continue reading

Honduras Could be Limping Towards its Gotterdammerung

15 July, 2009 — Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Although talks between officials of the exiled Honduran government and the de facto regime now in power in Tegucigalpa began last week at the San Jose residence of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, it has not taken long for the modicum of hope surrounding these negotiations to dissipate. This disillusionment with the diplomatic process is especially potent as neither ousted President Manuel Zelaya nor interim President Roberto Michelletti are currently participating in any kind of talks with each other aimed at resolving the constitutional stand-off now in effect in one of the poorest countries in Latin America. Frustration with the process has flared up in the international community, which is united in its decision that the status quo must be restored. There is widespread belief that the interim government is stalling in a bid to hold out until the November elections, and the dissatisfaction with the results to date manifested in Zelaya’s perhaps rash announcement yesterday that if he is not reinstated by the end of the next round of talks, scheduled to begin Saturday, he will resort to other means. Before the coup, Honduras was already mired in poverty and corruption, notorious for its reputation as one of the least transparent countries in Latin America, and extremely dependent on the United States and multilateral organizations for financial support. It appeared that the situation could be swiftly resolved if key outside players were willing to apply the necessary diplomatic heft to insist that the rival Honduran presidents come to an agreement based on goodwill derived from a patriotic sense of perspective.

Continue reading

Who Needs an Islamic State? by Yoginder Sikand

Sikand.jpgAbdelwahab El-Affendi is a well-known Islamic scholar and political philosopher from Sudan, presently based in London.  Author of numerous works, his latest book, provocatively titled Who Needs an Islamic State? discusses what he regards as the serious lacunae in contemporary Islamist political thought, which, in his view, have caused Islamist movements to reach a virtual dead end, creating many more problems (for Muslims as well as others) than they have been able to solve.  El-Affendi seeks to argue the case for a paradigm shift in Muslim political thinking in order to fashion a contextually relevant understanding of Islam and its role in, and relation to, the public sphere.

Islamism may be described as a version of Islam predicated on the centrality of the notion of an “Islamic state” whose principal function is to enforce, and rule by, what is conventionally regarded as shariah law.  Islamism is far from being the homogenous phenomenon that it is often taken to be.  Nor are all versions of Islamism necessarily incompatible with democracy.  Undeniably, however, many forms of Islamism are.  Islamist ideologues, driven by triumphalist, even apocalyptic, fervor, have failed to a develop consistent position on such crucial issues as limits to state authority, people’s participation in law-making and governance, the role and status of non-Muslims and women, and the question of violence.  Almost all recent experiments in setting up “Islamic states” have involved tremendous bloodshed, conflict, and large-scale suppression of democratic rights, including of Muslims themselves.  The tantalizing utopian society that Islamists promise to usher in seems to recede even further into the realm of possibility once Islamists come to power.

Continue reading

US PLANS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE SABOTAGE NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT TALKS WITH RUSSIA By Alice Slater

14 July, 2009 — Counterpunch

Although Obama and Medvedev pledged to work for a nuclear weapons free world this spring, they failed to take meaningful steps at their July summit to put the world on the proper path to nuclear abolition. Disappointingly, they only agreed to minor cuts in their respective weapons arsenals due to US unwillingness to cancel its plans to put missile and radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic which Russia views as a threat to its security.  Essentially we have come full circle to the 1986 Reagan-Gorbachev summit at Reykjavik, when negotiations for the total abolition of nuclear weapons tragically collapsed because Reagan wouldn’t give up U.S. plans for a Strategic Defense Initiative to dominate space.

Continue reading