Following the Venezuelan independence day last Wednesday, US presidential nominee Mitt Romney issued a statement saying that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez “failed to honor the spirit of freedom with which Venezuela was established. Hugo Chávez is promoting ideas in Venezuela and other Latin American countries that run counter to freedom, prevent prosperity and expand tyranny.”

The statement is typical US discourse opposing Chavez, who has long been a hate figure in US media. The populist ideas Chavez is promoting have long been a concern for the US. This was illustrated by a similar statement by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, then reacting to Salvardo Allende’s election in Chile in 1970.

Chile was then on the verge of becoming an independent socialist state rather than a Soviet satellite, a development which, according to Kissinger, “would be far more dangerous… because its ‘model’ effect can be insidious… our main concern is the prospect that [Allende] can consolidate himself and the picture projected to the world will be his success.”

Washington’s greatest fear, far greater than communism or the rise of totalitarianism, is, and always has been, successful independent nationalism. That has currently become a reality across Latin America following the last ten year’s remarkable development known as the “pink tide.” This movement is characterized by the election of leftist governments (with notable examples such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia, among others), increased government control over natural resources with new social reforms favoring the poor and former marginalized indigenous populations, and a region-wide opposition to Washington influence stretching from Venezuela to Argentina.

Venezuela has been on the forefront of this socialist movement, initiated by the 1999 election of Hugo Chavez.

Hugo Chavez was elected President following two decades of economic turmoil in Venezuela. Chavez, coming from poor conditions himself, immediately set out to introduce reforms specifically targeting the poor majority – a former invisible group in a Venezuela dominated by a small and wealthy elite with close ties to the US.

Today, Venezuela has free health care and free education, as well as some of the highest literacy rates in the region. In 2002, the disgruntled upper class, rendered powerless under the Chavez government, staged a coup with the help of Washington. The US had been channeling millions of dollars to the coup makers through US Aid and the National Endowment for democracy. Chavez was replaced by Pedro Carmona, a businessman who suspended all members of the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the National Electoral board and assumed dictatorial powers.

The IMF was not late to jump aboard; during a press briefing the day after the coup, Thomas C. Dawson, Director of the External Relations Department in the IMF, immediately pledged allegiance to the Carmona government, saying that “we stand ready to assist the new administration in whatever manner they find.”

All the while, official US spokesmen backed a phony story about Chavez supporters shooting innocent civilians. However, the poor masses were not going to accept being marginalized once again, and thus emerged with great numbers from the Barrios demanding Chavez reinstatement. As they approached the presidential palace, the army turned against the coup makers and reinstated Chavez, a mere 48 hours after his ousting.

Philip Agee, a former CIA agent operating in Latin America, explains why the US would back a coup overthrowing an elected government and replace it with a dictator: “In the CIA, we didn’t give a hoot about democracy. It was fine if a government was elected and would co-operate with us, but if it didn’t, then democracy didn’t mean a thing to us, and I don’t think it means a thing today.”

Venezuela is home to the largest oil reserves in the world outside of the Middle East, and is thus a country of vital strategic importance to the US. Detrimental to US designs, Chavez is forming close ties with China instead of Washington. Chavez is also cooperating closely with Cuba, Argentina and other South American nations under the premise of achieving a Latin American “grand unity,” in which Washington is not included.

The US often condemns Venezuela and its current form of democracy, while paradoxically praising and supporting the neighboring government of Colombia, a country with one of the worst human rights record in history. According to virtually unreported Latinobarometro polls, Venezuela is annually the highest ranking in all of South America when it comes to trust in democracy, assessment of the current and future economic situations, equality, justice, and education standards.

Venezuela has got its far share of problems, such as mounting inflation and continuous corruption, but compared to the pre-Chavez Venezuela, where the majority of the population were completely marginalized, the democratic development is nothing far from remarkable.

As Latin America is steadily slipping out of US control, Washington is waking up to a new multipolar world in which its powers are no longer taken for granted. The continent has seen a remarkable reversal of detrimental financial and social policies during the last ten years. The region, which contemptuously has been known as Americas “back yard,” is moving towards a future in which a bewildered Washington no longer has a place.

No wonder Mitt Romney is disgruntled.

Image COurtesy of   ¡Que comunismo!

The article A Dangerous Model: Venezuela and the Pink Tide appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

For decades, Iran has been a subject of multilateral international sanctions which have failed to produce cumulative effects on influencing Iran’s policy on its nuclear program. The “toughest sanctions to date,” as quoted by President Obama, will come into full effect on 28th June 2012. Once again, sanctions fall under the umbrella of attempting to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear proliferation program.

According to an International Atomic Agency Report 2011, Iran is aiming towards obtaining nuclear weapons and the punitive methods used by the U.S. government will not just subvert the central bank of Iran but will also have an effect on its energy and transport sector. Pressure has also been exerted on other governments to join in with the implementation of a fourth round of UN sanctions on Iran.

Ranking fifth in the world in its oil reserves and second in gas reserves, Iran is clearly an important energy resource base and a major supplier of oil and natural gas to countries like India, China and Japan. In January 2012, the European Union froze assets of Iran’s central bank within its zone and will be extending oil shipment ban later in July. The severity of these sanctions has made it impossible for companies, banks and governments to do any business dealings with Iran.

The debate about whether or not Iran has a right to nuclear energy is as old as Queen Elizabeth’s ascent to the throne. For Iran, acquisition of nuclear energy has become a matter of national pride and in response to this fourth round of multilateral sanctions taken by the UN in 2010, Iran has responded by stating its right to peaceful nuclear energy.

Iran is a study of complexity and intrigue. It is difficult to understand a society that tethers between the modernism of Shah’s time and adherence to the early years of Islam. Iran’s image in the global world is tarnished, and according to a BBC poll in 2012, Iran tops their list as the country that offers “the most negative influence in the world.”

With the collapse of Saddam’s Baathist regime and the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, an altered and delicate balance of power exists in Southwest Asia. Iran’s strategic importance has made itself a point of convergence of the interests of major players, particularly the US. One only needs to look at the map of the Middle East to know the strategic importance of Iran to the US.

In last 10 years, the strong and divisive fissure in U.S. foreign policy to coerce Tehran into adapting a new stance on the war on terrorism has also failed. Sanctions imposed by the Bush administration in 2006 barred Iran from dealing with US financial institutions, even indirectly. As a result, continuous rounds of sanctions have severed diplomatic ties between the two countries. The restart of the Iranian nuclear program and the US retaliation in terms of sanctions, further induces strong images of adversaries that are monolithically aggressive, diabolical, and untrustworthy. For adversaries who hold equally negative images of the other, the ability for each side to misperceive the enemy’s intent has become more pervasive. This means that it is highly possible that the mutual fear between the US and Iran may result in war.

In the present, the impending talks of attacks on Iran are chiefly driven by concern over the safety of US energy supplies, which is similar to the 2003 Iraq war. However, it is certain that the US will never mention oil as a reason for attacking Iran and furthermore, weapons of mass destruction will be cited as the principal justification for war. It is a concern that waging a war against Iran will worsen the cycle of war and violence in the Middle East since that has been continuing since time immemorial.

There is a pursuing debate among international community about the efficacy of these sanctions. With the impending global recession, and ongoing crisis in the Middle East and North African regions (MENA), boycotting Iranian oil will have an adverse effect on world supplies, especially for developing countries. Even though Iranian oil exports are down by 25%, the government has refused to compromise its stance on its nuclear program.

We shouldn’t forget that Iranian anger over centuries of foreign meddling in their sovereign affairs hasn’t yet disseminated. Iranians have yet to learn to forgive the US and its allies over the ousting of Mossadegh in 1953. If the international media can manipulate and present Iran as something out of the stone ages, then Iranian media has also been ambivalent in showing America and its allies as their version of the axis of evil.

Also, the Shiite faction across the world is fiercely loyal to Iran and has taken its impalpable oath of allegiance to the Ayatollah of Iran. Ali Khamenei’s term is coming to an end, but to think that the new government will be easy to manipulate like the puppet governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan could merely be more wishful thinking. Already, the sanctions have fueled bitter resentment against countries participating in them. Perhaps it’s a time for Euro-Anglo-American bodies to renew their policies and ascertain a modus vivendi that will build ties and, more importantly, will guarantee the stability of the Gulf region.

Economic sanctions throughout history have had corrosive effects on the population of a sanctioned country. Though the government of Iran is confident in its ability to ‘weather’ such sanctions, this is the biggest challenge the country will face since the end of the bloody Iran-Iraq war. With the evolving recession crisis worldwide, it will be interesting to see how Iran will overcome these further imposed sanctions.

Image Courtesy of  [john]

The article Isolated Iran vs. the Rest of the World appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In a positive step for U.S.-Iraq relations, the two countries have reached a deal in which the United States will sell Iraq unmanned aerial drones and other military equipment. Iraq’s navy will use the drones to protect its oil reserves within the country’s territory in the Persian Gulf.

The U.S. Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq, headed by Gen. Robert Caslen, hopes that this sale will enable Iraq to be a dependable source of oil, a valuable asset given the recent sanctions on neighboring Iran. A steady outflow of oil should lessen the pressure on oil prices both in the United States and in Europe. The sale of the drones was confirmed by the office but no other details were provided.

Iraqi oil must travel through a number of straits and passageways that are susceptible to terror and other criminal activities or acts of war. Iran has threatened to blockade the area in the past. Ali al-Moussawi, an adviser to the Iraqi prime minister, believes that “Iraq should have the ability to protect itself against outside aggression.”

Iraq has stated that it is not concerned whether or not Iran will view the move as a threat. The drones will enable Iraq to keep 24 hour surveillance of its precious resources. Iraq is currently training engineers to man the drones and plans to be ready to use the drones late this year.

Gen. Caslen has said that “They understand the importance of the mission to protect its oil platforms.”Iraq has been responsible for securing the oil reserves since 2005, but had the help of the United States until American troops withdrew in late 2011.

Since the U.S. pulled out of Iraq, the OPEC country has increased its oil production to 3 million barrels a day from about 2.5 million barrels a day. Its oil industry was previously crippled due to long wars and harsh sanctions against ousted dictator Saddam Hussein. Iraq’s deputy prime minister for energy, Hussain al-Shahristani, estimates that production will grow to 10 million barrels per day within the decade. Iraq has the world’s fourth largest oil reserve infrastructure.

The sale of the drones is meant to strengthen U.S.-Iraqi relations. The ties have been in a fragile state since the United States entered Iraq in 2003. Iraq has already agreed to purchase more than $15 billion worth of American military equipment, including F-16 fighter jets, tanks, and armored personnel carriers. Iraq maintains that all of its purchases are to be used for defensive purposes.

Image Courtesy of Anton Hlushchenko / Shutterstock.com

The article U.S. Builds Relations with Iraq through Military Equipment appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.