Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Cuba : Hemeroteca ( New York Times)...and more...

Steve Clemons

Steve Clemons

Posted: November 17, 2009 02:34 AM

Howard Berman/Richard Lugar Bipartisan Team Call for End to Cuba Travel Ban

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) have jointly written a compelling case to end the travel ban for all Americans desiring to go to Cuba.
In fact, their piece, titled "Lift the Ban -- Let Americans Visit Cuba" really calls for ending travel restrictions on Americans going anywhere since Cuba is the only place in the world where America's democratic government restricts the travel freedom of its citizens.
It is a remarkable but true fact that the US government cannot stop regular Americans from traveling to North Korea, Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, or any other complicated place in the world -- except the one spot where the Cold War still freezes time -- Cuba.
obama lugar.jpg
The Lugar-Berman piece reflects a sensible bipartisan realism about the fact that five decades of an embargo have dramatically hurt US interests and have only perpetuated a dysfunctional status quo in US-Cuba relations.
President Obama constantly calls for serious bipartisanship in national security matters -- and he can pluck this Lugar-Berman prize off the tree easily if he has the will (and time on his overcrowded calendar). The House bill to end the travel ban to Cuba has been led by Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA) on the Dem side and Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) who often says that it's supposed to be Communist governments, not Democratic ones, that impose restrictions on their citizen's choices to travel. The House Bill now has 180 cosponsors comprised of both Republicans and Democrats.
The companion Senate bill has 34 Senate cosponsors. Informal whip counts put the House bill at 205 votes -- within striking distance of the 218 needed, and between 61-64 in the Senate.
But thus far Barack Obama's team continues to condition any further openings to Cuba with a requirement that Cuba begin to demonstrate key political reforms on top of the fact that Obama's presidency has done the ironic thing of opening up travel for a "class" of Americans (those with Cuban relatives) while excluding all other Americans from that legal privilege -- I would actually say, "legal right". This exclusion of some but not all is something Obama should not want too long on his legacy sheet.
Lugar and Berman open:
berman.jpg
U.S. law lets American citizens travel to any country on earth, friend or foe -- with one exception: Cuba. It's time for us to scrap this anachronistic ban, imposed during one of the chilliest periods of the Cold War. Legislation to abolish restrictions on travel to Cuba has been introduced in both chambers of Congress. And on Thursday the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing examining the rationale for the travel ban.
This ban has prevented contact between Cubans and ordinary Americans, who serve as ambassadors for the democratic values we hold dear. Such contact would help break Havana's chokehold on information about the outside world. And it would contribute to improving the image of the United States, particularly in Latin America, where the U.S. embargo on Cuba remains a centerpiece of anti-Washington grievances.
While opponents argue that repealing the travel ban would indicate approval of the Cuban human rights record, many human rights organizations -- among them Freedom House and Human Rights Watch -- have called for abolishing travel restrictions.
They go on to make the same point, namely " "isolation from outside visitors only strengthens the Castro regime," that former AEI neoconservative staffer and current Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw "Radek" Sikorski made in his own 2005 essay on Cuba in National Review. Bush Institute for Public Policy Director and former G.W. Bush administration Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy James Glassman has also argued that the travel ban and embargo undermine American interests.
It is through people to people exchange that both Cubans and Americans will become exposed to each other's worlds and political realities. They argue that more financial flow inside Cuba will strengthen the underground economy, a source of independence and potential liberalism inside Cuba.
Berman and Lugar state flat out with regard to the notion that restricting US travel to Cuba generates any leverage at all after five decades of failure on this track: "Conditionality is not leverage in this case."
The White House National Security Council staff reading this really should articulate a believable counter-point to Senator Lugar's and Chairman Berman's compelling argument if it is going to continue to 'cling to conditionality' before making further moves. What is the empirical basis for believing that putting Cuban responses before American interests will have any impact or makes sense?
Others who Barack Obama respects -- including former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State and Treasury George P. Shultz -- have said that both the travel ban and the embargo make no sense as foreign policy. Shultz has called the travel ban "lunacy".
There are not many occasions when there is such a large squad of Democrats and Republicans in the same space.
Howard Berman is on board. Richard Lugar is on board. Many others are as well. Call John Kerry -- and I bet he's on board too.
It's the only course that ultimately makes sense. As David Rothkopf said at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting just before this past year's Summit of the Americas, US-Cuba relations are the "Edsel of US foreign policy."
It's time for Barack Obama to wake up on this and realize that he and his team are the outliers in a hefty and healthy bipartisan move in the Latin America portfolio.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
                                                                                                                           

No Thanks, Senator Lugar

Tuesday, November 17, 2009
U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, the Ranking Republican of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has developed a keen interest in unconditionally normalizing relations with Castro regime.

According to last week's feature article on Cuba policy by Congressional Quarterly:

Lugar, who wrote Obama earlier this year urging greater engagement with Havana, agrees that it is time for an overall change in U.S.-Cuba policy. "Our whole protocol of sanctions has not worked to bring down the Cuban government or modify the power of Cuba in any substantial way," he said.

Driving such calls for change, especially among Republicans, is the potential for increased trade. With all of the obstacles that have been put in the way, U.S. food and pharmaceutical sales to Cuba earned a paltry $712 million in 2008. But with a relaxation of travel and trade restrictions, that figure is bound to grow, Lugar says. "This is a very good time for public diplomacy," he said. "And it can occur very profitably for Americans though trade in food and medicine."


Did he say "profitably"?

So just how does this work?

Engage the Castro regime, transact business, pocket the profit and beg that they don't repress the Cuban people?

And -- at the end of the day -- if the regime doesn't listen, at least the US business interests made a profit, despite subsidizing even greater repression?

Is that the thinking?

No thanks, Senator Lugar.

Listen to the advice of former Czech dissident leader -- and President upon the fall of Communism -- Vaclav Havel, who in a speech at the European Parliament last week commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall stated:

"It has long been my opinion that after what we underwent at the time of the totalitarian system, we ought—or we are duty-bound even—to explain to others in a convincing manner what we went through, and make specific suggestions based on its various implications... Above all, clear and unequivocal solidarity with all those confronted by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes wherever they are in the world. And economic or other particular interests should not hinder such solidarity. Even a minor, discreet and well-intentioned compromise can have fatal consequences --even if only in the long term, or indirectly."

The stakes of freedom are too large for a simple profit.

Save Energy (for Castro's Military)

Last week,

Cuba orders extreme measures to cut energy use

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba has ordered all state enterprises to adopt "extreme measures" to cut energy usage through the end of the year in hopes of avoiding the dreaded blackouts that plagued the country following the 1991 collapse of its then-top ally, the Soviet Union.

In documents seen by Reuters, government officials have been warned that the island is facing a "critical" energy shortage that requires the closing of non-essential factories and workshops and the shutting down of air conditioners and refrigerators not needed to preserve food and medicine.

This week,

Cuba set to carry out large-scale military drills

HAVANA (RIA Novosti) - The Cuban Defense Ministry has announced that large-scale military exercises will take place in the country on November 26-28.

The three-day Bastion-2009 drills will be held on the eve of the National Defense Day, which is celebrated in Cuba on November 29.

If sanctions were unconditionally lifted, take a guess where U.S. tourism, trade and financing dollars would end up.

Source: Capitol Hill Cubans

FOREIGN POLICY

Lift the ban -- let Americans visit Cuba


www.lugar.senate.gov

U.S. law lets American citizens travel to any country on earth, friend or foe -- with one exception: Cuba. It's time for us to scrap this anachronistic ban, imposed during one of the chilliest periods of the Cold War.
Legislation to abolish restrictions on travel to Cuba has been introduced in both chambers of Congress. And on Thursday the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing examining the rationale for the travel ban.
This ban has prevented contact between Cubans and ordinary Americans, who serve as ambassadors for the democratic values we hold dear. Such contact would help break Havana's chokehold on information about the outside world. And it would contribute to improving the image of the United States, particularly in Latin America, where the U.S. embargo on Cuba remains a centerpiece of anti-Washington grievances.
While opponents argue that repealing the travel ban would indicate approval of the Cuban human rights record, many human rights organizations -- among them Freedom House and Human Rights Watch -- have called for abolishing travel restrictions.
There is no doubt that Raúl Castro's government continues to ban most political activity not controlled by the Cuban Communist Party. Opposition parties are illegal, virtually all media remain state controlled, and Cuba has the highest number of political prisoners of any country in the Americas. But isolation from outside visitors only strengthens the Castro regime.
U.S. travelers' dollars, furthermore, could aid the underground economy and the small self-employed sector permitted by the state, strengthening an important foundation of independence from Cuba's authoritarian system.
Travel ban defenders view sanctions as leverage over the Cuban government and their abolition as a concession. But over the last five decades, it has become clear that isolation will not induce the Castro regime to take steps toward political liberalization. Conditionality is not leverage in this case.
Our current approach has made any policy changes contingent on Havana, not U.S. interests, and it has left Washington an isolated bystander, watching events on the island unfold at a distance.
Finally, while travel restrictions are contrary to our foreign policy interests, they also impede the right of Americans to freedom of speech, association and to travel. Sometimes a travel ban may be necessary, but nothing about the Cuba situation today justifies such an infringement on our basic liberties.
The Obama administration has already made a move in the right direction by lifting restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban-Americans and opening the way for greater telecommunications links with the island.
It is now time for the Congress to take the next step for all Americans.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., is the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rep. Howard L. Berman, D-Calif., is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Source: Other View-The Miami Herald

Cuba: It ought to be called the "democracy of money"

The Cuban Interests Section -- Havana's defacto embassy in Washington -- says a recent report tying campaign contributions to U.S.-Cuba policy "reveals the tip of the iceberg of what moves behind U.S. policy toward Cuba.
"It also shows how money rules policy toward Cuba, not principles, ethics, justice and morality," the press office's Alberto González said in an e-mail. "The right of Americans to travel to Cuba does not constitute a 'gesture toward Cuba' but a constitutional right of American citizens. However, it is remarkable how these
legislators accept money for something that goes against the very constitutional rights of the American people."
The report found supporters of the embargo had contributed more than $11 million to fend off efforts to weaken sanctions against the government.
Among the big beneficiaries: New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, who heads up efforts to raise money for Senate Democrats.
"It is interesting and scandalous that Sen. Bob Menéndez was one of those who received the most money for maintaining this type of policy against Cuba," González said. "Evidently, one must question whether his interests respond not to the Cuban community but to an issue of money.
"Bob Menéndez shows once more that he is making policy toward Cuba on Republican grounds and against the interests of the real Cubans, even against his own party. If this is called democracy, then it should be 'the democracy of money.' "
A spokesman for Menendez said the senator "has held his principled views on Cuba since long before he came to Congress and long before this PAC was created. The PAC has the freedom to contribute to whomever it wants, but that has no bearing on the senator's positions."
He noted that if Public Campaign "truly wants to inform the public, they ought to include in their report all of the contributions from corporations and organizations that oppose the embargo. It would not amount to chump change.
"While groups like this are all worried about legal campaign contributions, under the law in a democracy, they seem to be uninterested in freedom, democracy and human rights in Cuba."
Source: Cuban Colada - Posted by Lesley Clark on November 17, 2009

                                                                                      

Monday, November 9, 2009


Yoani Sanchez, still irrepressible

En route to a march at 23d and G in Havana’s Vedado neighborhood on Friday, Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez was detained, packed into a car, and roughed up by plainclothes agents.

Here’s coverage from the Herald, Reuters, the Guardian, and AFP.

On her blog (in English here), Yoani took a shot at those who would blame the victim for bringing the attack on herself and at those who choose to look the other way. She says she is “recovering from the physical injuries.”

Penultimos Dias has details and photos of the demonstration itself here and here.

And Ray Walser of the Heritage Foundation leverages the incident to argue against lifting travel restrictions. Yoani’s views on travel and the embargo are pretty well known, including this: “Change will come not through government agencies but through the citizens and the spread of information and exchange with the outside world.”
Posted by Phil Peters
Source: The Cuban Triangle 
                                                                                                


Cuba entre dientes

By Ernesto Escudero

Is very easy be criticizes behind a mask or disguise, accusing being of the bull and don’t play the life in front of the animal. Or judge any person from a conceptual distance or  from that mountain of irony where they hide the unjust assimilating the irony with the fetid pleasure of their wickedness.

Last week a so dangerous fact happened to Yoani Sánchez. A youth girl that writes a Blog called Generation Y from Cuba and have received numerous international prizes for their journalistc work. Like the lost of the petroleum of those loaded ships that navigate for the oceans, Yoani Sánchez is an important example of knowledge.

The fishs and the birds suffer and die caught also in that toxic liquidates (Black Gold) that is transported for supply of the countries.
Several geologists thinks that the petroleum finishes and  for such reason it is necessary to go up the prices. They have already predicted Collin Campbell and Jean Laherrere, geologists of Petroconsults in Geneva and the famous lost of petroleum for the year 2010. This way the prices go up for the clouds. But the controversy on the petroleum doesn’t finish even, now Leonard Maugen, vice-president of Corporate Strategies assures that the petroleum hits far from their exhaustion.
In the year 1919 the Geological Survey in the United State said under the burdem threat of the lack of the petroleum would be drained the valuable liquidate in nine years. Which was it the result? The hysteria takes possession of the hots heads and the Coolidge presidente he organize in 1924 the Federal Oil Conservation Board, with the objective of having a composition on tha national reservations in control. Them also England united to the collective hysteria and after the conversion sended the fleet of the Marine Englishman , on the coal to the petroleum in the year 1914, and like the fear that the petroleum gets lost  completely mobilized to the Persico Gulf in order to assure their supply.

But the petroleum continuous extracting. The calamity orders those controllers of petroleum that get rich of the petroleum and changes it for the gross coin for the continuity in the power without mattering them the consequences. It is true that the recoverable maximum of the resource in the acronym in URR groins this still by continuing this oil production .They said that the wells of counted petroleum exist in order to supply to the earth and for these reason the war is a threatening factor for the stability of the planet, and also is not very clear the possibility of continuing finding new locations of petroleum in the planet. For these reasons the countries like Cuba and Venezuela use the politics of intimidation like measure of an advanced from military security.

The petroleum is a hydrocarbon, organic formed compound only for carbon and hydrogenate. The petroleum is highly pollutant. Yoani Sánchez like the petroleum inside the communist system is a way of dangerous consequences and for this reason the measurres of hitting it as an arbitrary system of psychological tortures that the oppressor aims to separeat of the society , but the cruel methods of the oppresor have been late because Yoani Sánchez has multiplied inside Cuba and like the petroleum and the friction is not compatible it is hoped another development in saying period…

                                                                                                                      


Army General Raul Castro has taken his time to make “structural changes,” which have arrived, e.g. the rationing booklet (libreta de racionamiento) has its days numbered.
It is foreseen that Cubans’ desperation will generate conflicts but also the adoption of other measures such as currency unification.
To halt such an impact, the government has asked the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (Comités de Defensa de la Revolución (CDR) to prepare neighbors for upcoming hard times.
CDR’s will conduct a census of resident workers and increase surveillance to prevent illegalities, i.e. renting out rooms without a state license or sell aliments on the black market.
Click here to read the rest of El Correo Digital article.
Source: CUBAPOLIDATA

                                                                                                  

Obama is right, everyone else is wrong

Yesterday I posted about Obama's violation of protocol when he submissively bowed to the Japanese emperor. According to some of the comments left on my post yesterday, however, this subservient gesture is no big deal. Obama was only showing "elementary courtesy," as one commenter put it.
If that be the case, then I guess we should take a look at how other world leaders have greeted the Japanese emperor.
Via HotAirPundit, we have a few photographs of world leaders greeting the emperor.


Prime Minister Ehud Olmert



King of Morocco




Dick Cheney






Prime Minister Slovenia





President South Korea





President Kazakhstan





Prime Minister India





Vladimir Putin


It looks like Obama is the only world leader with "elementary courtesy!"

    You have got to be kidding me…

    obamajapan
    The leader of the most powerful nation in the world bows submissively before the figurehead emperor of Japan.

    This one photograph says more about who Obama is and what he thinks of himself and his country than anything he has ever said. Make no mistake, this subservient moment captured in the photograph speaks volumes of the content of his character and what he is made of.
    Something inside Barack Obama is so powerful and so overwhelming that even though he is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, he still feels an uncontrollable urge to bow and show his submissiveness to the foreign elite. Something is definitely wrong with this guy.
    Read all about this disgusting display of submissiveness HERE.

    Source : babalú



    Resto de Latinoamérica ...

    Vecinos conflictivos

    Venezuela y Colombia están viviendo su peor momento. Las relaciones entre ambos países están rotas prácticamente a todos los niveles. Pero, ¿qué ha llevado a esta situación?

    Agencias/Rioja2 | 17/11/2009
    Colombia y Venezuela no sólo comparten kilómetros de frontera. Ambos países cuentan con unos presidentes que han sido capaces de crear polémica con sus peculiares declaraciones o decisiones. El mandatario colombiano, Álvaro Uribe, no ha dudado en acercarse a la Administración estadounidense de Barack Obama, firmando un acuerdo de colaboración militar que ha despertado las críticas de sus homólogos en el continente latinoamericano. Mientras, por su parte, el presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez, consigue despertar la furia de medio mundo con declaraciones como la que le ha llevado ante la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) y el consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas.

    Las palabras de Chávez, pronunciadas hace unos días, en las que supuestamente hacia un llamamiento a la guerra contra Colombia han sido el motivo necesario para que el presidente Uribe denunciara al mandatario venezolano ante las dos organizaciones internacionales, pues según el gobierno de Bogotá se trata de una clara amenaza hacia su país.

    “No pierdan ni un sólo día en el cumplimiento” de “nuestra principal misión: prepararnos para la guerra y ayudar al pueblo a prepararse para la guerra, porque es una responsabilidad de todos”. Estas declaraciones que para el gobierno de Venezuela son una medida de precaución para la protección de la soberanía frente a la llegada de militares estadounidenses a las bases de Colombia, han sido entendidas por las autoridades colombianas como una amenaza de guerra.

    Llegados a este punto, en el que las relaciones comerciales y diplomáticas están rotas y en el que el cruce de acusaciones entre ambos países no parece cesar, se puede llegar a pensar que la clave de esta mala relación tiene su origen en el reciente acuerdo de carácter militar que han firmado el gobierno de Uribe y la Administración de Barack Obama, y que permite a Estados Unidos tener presencia militar en siete bases en el territorio colombiano.

    Sin embargo, la realidad de Colombia y Venezuela y las personalidades de sus mandatarios señalan otras causas que motivan esta mala relación. El escritor Jorge Volpi define la relación entre Uribe y Chávez como muy compleja, ya que a pesar de que en la actualidad están enfrentados, en tiempos pasados tenían posturas más cercanas. “Es como si todo el tiempo se necesitasen, aún en estos momentos de enemistad brutal, resulta muy práctica para ambos”, ha señalado el autor.

    Según el escritor mexicano, para Chávez la “confrontación con Colombia tiene más bien una lectura interna” de apoyo a un régimen que está en “uno de sus peores momentos de popularidad” porque Venezuela atraviesa uno de sus peores momentos con la inflación alta y grandes índices de seguridad, a lo que se suman cortes de agua y de luz.

    Pero Volpi también señala cuáles son los beneficios que logra el gobierno colombiano de esta enemistad. Para Uribe esta postura responde a la “lógica interna” porque “está cerca de buscar la reelección y también le conviene el conflicto con Venezuela” porque lo “refuerza también desde dentro”. “Esta confrontación está reforzando la imagen interna de cada uno de los presidentes y curiosamente está beneficiando a los dos en un momento en que los dos necesitan mucho apoyo interno”, ha subrayado el escritor.

    De esta manera, los dos mandatarios salen beneficiados de una crisis que tiene en vilo al continente entero. Sólo hay que recordar el ambiente vivido en la cumbre de la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (Unasur), en Argentina, el pasado mes de agosto. Cuando países no posiciones con ninguno de los dos bandos como son Chile, Brasil o la propia Argentina hicieron todos los esfuerzos posibles para evitar el choque entre Uribe y Chávez.

    Pero estos esfuerzos fueron en vano, pues el presidente de Colombia defendió su decisión de permitir a Estados Unidos que use varias de sus bases militares para combatir el narcotráfico, mientras que su homólogo venezolano consideraba el pacto militar como un peligro para su país y para todo el continente ya que permitiría a Estados Unidos tener una plataforma militar en un lugar clave.

    Todo sigue igual

    Así, a día de hoy, las posiciones no han cambiado. Hugo Chávez continua reiterando su rechazo a iniciar un proceso de diálogo con Colombia para poner fin a la crisis entre ambas naciones  e insiste en que la única salida posible al conflicto es que Estados Unidos “desista” de su proyecto para utilizar siete bases militares en territorio colombiano. Algo más que improbable, pero que refuerza la postura de “anti imperialismo yanki” adoptada por el gobierno de Venezuela.

    “Si Estados Unidos quiere soluciones prácticas que retire las bases yankis de Colombia y libere a ese pueblo hermano”, afirmaba Chávez recientemente, rechazando así la posible mediación en la crisis del portavoz del departamento de Estado estadounidense, Ian Kelly.

    Mientras, el presidente Uribe guarda silencio,
    después de haber llevado ante el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas y la OEA su denuncia. Ante “las nuevas agresiones verbales de Chávez, el presidente Álvaro Uribe no quiso hacer ninguna alusión”, informaba la prensa colombiana.

    Sin embargo, aunque el mandatario colombiano no ha hablado, los miembros de su partido sí que se han pronunciado, reforzando así la postura tomada por el Ejecutivo de Colombia. El periódico colombiano El Tiempo recogía que las  palabras del representante a la Cámara uribista Roy Barreras, para quien Chávez es 'un loco que está cañando, pero con el hay que venir prevenido'”.

    Llegados a este punto, el diálogo, una vez más, parece la única salida para estos dos países vecinos, aunque ambos gobiernos tendrán que renunciar a sus intereses internos para que sus palabras pasen a ser hechos.



               Fuente en el texto                      

    ‘Chávez es un loco porque no ha hecho lo que sus antecesores: robar, asesinar y reprimir’


    En su ‘Piedra de Tranca’ de hoy, Marciano sostiene que mientras Álvaro Uribe y su gobierno afirman que respetan a Venezuela, los medios de comunicación de Colombia “dirigidos desde Casa de Nariño, hacen el trabajo sucio”, al referirse a las publicaciones Semana y El Tiempo.
    Esta es la ‘Piedra de Tranca’ de hoy, tal como la publica el DiarioVea:
    LA REVISTA SEMANA de Bogotá, una de las tantas publicaciones de la poderosa familia Santos, la del terrorista ex ministro de Defensa, la del actual Vicepresidente de la República, procesado por la Fiscalía colombiana por su conexión con los más siniestros jefes paramilitares, y la de otro Santos, el que dirige “El Tiempo”, tradicional vocero de la oligarquía y, a su vez, presidente de la Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa -la inefable SIP- desde donde dispara parejo contra Venezuela, trae en su último número, en portada, una foto del presidente Chávez con el siguiente titular: “¿Qué tan loco está Chávez?
    000000000000000
    EL REPORTAJE RECOGE una sarta de falsedades e insultos contra el mandatario venezolano, muy al estilo de lo que suele hacer la clase dirigente del vecino país. Mientras Uribe y el Gobierno proclaman respeto por Venezuela y tratan de presentarse como los ofendidos por el lenguaje de Chávez y establecer el contraste entre uno y otro gobernante, sus medios de comunicación, dirigidos desde Casa de Nariño, hacen el trabajo sucio. Es la característica de la política colombiana en sus manifestaciones internas y externas. Con relación a estas últimas, por ejemplo, el país que se ha convertido en centro del narcotráfico lanza temerarias acusaciones contra Venezuela, que no tiene ni arte ni parte en el sucio negocio y es víctima del mismo. Y lo mismo pasa con la guerra. Resulta que el país más armado de la región, con una fuerza militar de más de 400 mil efectivos, con total apoyo logísticos del Pentágono, que acaba de permitir la instalación de siete bases operativas de EEUU en su territorio, es pacífico; y Venezuela, blanco del aparato guerrerista del uribismo, es el belicista. Resulta, igualmente, que el único gobierno de la región que se atrevió a bombardear el territorio de un vecino, Ecuador, proclama su fidelidad a la paz y lanza contra Venezuela la acusación de guerrerista.
    000000000000000
    EL TRABAJO DE LA REVISTA de la familia Santos contra Chávez tildándolo de loco, más allá de que es una mediocre muestra de irresponsabilidad profesional y un agravio al Jefe de Estado de lo que allá llaman “país hermano”, es la prueba óptima de cómo se equivoca la gente, la de aquí y la de afuera, respecto a Chávez. Con el cuento de que es un loco sólo han conseguido que éste derrote a sus enemigos, a aquellos que lo califican de tal, en todos los terrenos, y que haya consolidado en condiciones difíciles un proceso revolucionario insólito, y proyectado su imagen y su gestión de gobierno como una poderosa referencia en el mundo. La locura de Chávez es su capacidad de trabajo. Su intuición para actuar con sentido de la oportunidad. Su contracción al liderazgo que encarna. Es saber combinar utopía y pragmatismo con acierto. Su demencia consiste en no ceder ante los poderosos. No transar que los poderes fácticos: grupos económicos, religiosos y sociales; y, en cambio, responder a los segregados y excluidos. En verdad es un loco consecuente con sus ideas, las cuales ha enriquecido en el tiempo que lleva en Miraflores, estudiando noche y día. Y que no llegó a la Presidencia para traficar y lucrarse.
    000000000000000
    CLARO QUE CHÁVEZ es un loco porque no ha hecho lo que hicieron sus antecesores en Miraflores: robar, asesinar, reprimir al pueblo, venderse a los EEUU y a los oligarcas del país. Está loco de bola, y en eso tiene razón la revista “Semana”, pero al revés.-
    La Locura de Chávez
    Marciano

    Fuente: Noticias24 
                                                                                                             


    Abandona sacerdote embajada de Brasil en Honduras

    La policía hondureña informó que el cónsul de El Salvador en Tegucigalpa, Nelson Rodríguez Cardozo, trasladó a Andrés Tamayo en su automóvil hacia la misión diplomática y luego se dirigirá a su país de origen, l que representa un golpe para el presidente depuesto Manuel Zelaya.
    Lun, 16/11/2009 - 20:39
    Tegucigalpa.- El sacerdote de origen salvadoreño y activista ambiental, Andrés Tamayo, abandonó hoy la embajada de Brasil, donde se encontraba acompañando al derrocado mandatario hondureño Manuel Zelaya.
    La salida del padre Tamayo representa un golpe para Zelaya, ya que es una figura mediática en Honduras debido a su lucha por la preservación del bosque en la oriental provincia de Olancho, de donde es oriundo Zelaya.
    La policía hondureña informó que el cónsul de El Salvador en Tegucigalpa, Nelson Rodríguez Cardozo, lo trasladó en su automóvil hacia la misión diplomática y luego se dirigirá a su país de origen.
    El padre Tamayo había recibido la ciudadanía hondureña por naturalización, entregada por el propio Zelaya, pero le fue revocada por el gobierno de facto que dirige Roberto Micheletti por haber lanzado llamados a la insurección desde la misión brasileña.
    El padre Tamayo ofrecía una misa todos los domingos en la embajada de Brasil.
    Fuente: Milenio

    Elecciones hondureñas

    Isaac Bigio






    El presidente constitucional depuesto de Honduras Mel Zelaya ha llamado a boicotear las elecciones generales del 29 de noviembre y desiste de querer volver a palacio. Esto implica el fin del acuerdo propuesto por Obama y Arias para encontrar una solución a la crisis hondureña mediante el hecho que Zelaya sea restituido para que él supervisase el traspaso del poder a un derechista que fuese electo en las urnas.

    EEUU quisiera poder decir que el impasse hondureño empezaría a desbloquearse tras que estos comicios nominasen a un nuevo gobierno. Panamá y otros Estados han de reconocer a quien salga electo en éstos. Sin embargo, muchos países seguirán cuestionando este proceso y, al igual que los zelayista, se negarán a reconocer los resultados de una consulta que ellos indican será hecha por golpistas.

    Si las elecciones hondureñas se dan manteniendo a Michelleti en palacio el objetivo del nuevo gobierno electo (que posiblemente sea el del conservador Lobo) sería tratar de buscar una legitimidad internacional aduciendo que éste surgió de las ánforas y tratando de llegar a algún acuerdo con los liberales que siguen o no siguen a Zelaya. Su meta sería la de ir buscando desgastar a Zelaya y que progresivamente éste vaya perdiendo peso interno e internacional.

    La cuestión de fondo es que un gobierno surgido de esta forma siempre tendrá un elemento para ser cuestionado de manera constitucional y ello servirá para azuzar constantes presiones y posibles explosiones sociales.




    A Manifesto in Support of Yoani Sanchez, a Cuban Blogger Attacked by the Castro Regime

    A Manifesto in support of Yoani Sanchez

    In response to the attacks and defamations made against the Cuban blogger Yoani Sánchez by the Castro regime in Cuba, the American opinion and news site, The Americano, signs this Manifesto in support of Yoani Sánchez. This site opens a space for its readers to place their signatures in support of this Manifesto and all it represent. More importantly, to voice your discontent towards this injustice.

    Last Friday, November 6th, 2009, Yoani Sánchez, a Cuban blogger of 34 years of age, was assaulted when three security agents sent by the Castrist tyranny forced her and two other friends into an unidentified vehicle. During the twenty-five minutes that she was held captive, she was repeatedly beat. Yoani Sáchez has won several awards due to her blog DesdeCuba.com/GeneracionY, in which she has always voiced her opinion about the real situation in Cuba. Amongst others, she has won the Ortega y Gasset (Spain) award for online journalism and the María Moors Cabot award (United States), neither of which she has been able to claim since she has been prohibited to leave Cuba.

    Furthermore, the Castro Regime prohibits her blog to be read within the island, and Cubans cannot access it online. The causes for all these atrocious assaults against her personal freedom are all inflicted by the tyrannical regime of the Castro brothers in Cuba. The Americano condemns this aggression against personal liberty, freedom of speech, and all that the Cuban government has failed to speak about.

    If you would like to sign the Manifesto, please add your name below.


    Manifiesto de apoyo a Yoani Sánchez, la bloguera cubana atacada por el régimen de Castro

    En respuesta a la campaña de ataques y difamaciones contra la bloguera cubana Yoani Sánchez puesta en marcha por el régimen cubano, el diario digital de Estados Unidos, The Americano, firma el Manifiesto de apoyo a Yoani Sánchez. Este diario abre un espacio a sus lectores para recoger firmas de apoyo a dicho Manifiesto. A continuación reproducimos el Manifiesto de apoyo a Yoani Sánchez y se irán ofreciendo las firmas de las personas que se han adherido al mismo.

    Yoani Sánchez, de 34 años, sufrió el pasado viernes 6 de noviembre de 2009 un asalto cuando tres agentes de seguridad enviados por la tiranía castrista le forzaron a entrar a ella y a otros dos amigos en un vehículo no identificado con ninguna placa. Durante los 25 minutos que duró el cautiverio hasta que les soltaron, Yoani Sánchez fue golpeada en varias ocasiones. Con su blog desdecuba.com/Generación Y, Yoani Sánchez, ha ganado, entre otros, el premio español de periodismo digital Ortega y Gasset y el estadounidense María Moors Cabot, galardones que no ha podido recibir porque las autoridades cubanas le impiden salir de Cuba. El régimen, además, llegó a prohibir el acceso al blog desde la isla. Las causas de dicho atropello contra la libertad personal de Yoani Sánchez proceden del tiránico régimen de los hermanos Castro en Cuba. The Americano condena esa agresión a la libertad personal y de información y de la que el Gobierno cubano se ha negado a hablar.

    Si desea adherirse a firmar este manifiesto, ponga su nombre completo a continuación.
    •  
    • Source: The Americano