POLICE ACTS ILLEGALLY

Ghana Police Chief Mohammed Alhassan

By Ekow Mensah

The conduct of the Ghana Police Service in seeking to ban demonstrations is not just repugnant in the extreme, it is also illegal.

Indeed the police are not clothed with any power to prevent a citizen or a group of citizen from organizing a demonstration.

In chapter Five, Article 21 (Id) the constitution states inter alia that “All persons shall have the right to freedom of assembly including the freedom to take part in processions and demonstrations”.

It must be clear from this provision that the drafters of the 1992 constitution intended to make the right to demonstrate unfetted and they did so.

 The only limitation to the right to freely demonstrate is imposed by the Public Order Law (Act 491) which was passed by parliament in 1994 but even that law does not confer any authority on the police to ban demonstrations.

Indeed, under the law only the High Court has the power to prevent citizens from organizing a demonstration.

The powers of the High Court are not unlimited.

It is clear that the decisions of the police to ban or prevent demonstrations are completely illegal.

For the purpose of providing clarity, the full text of the Public Order Law is reproduced below;

PUBLIC ORDER ACT

1994 (ACT 491)

Section 1-Notification to Police of Special of Event.

(1)               Any person who desires to hold any special event within the meaning of this Act in any public place shall notify the police of his intention not less than 5 days before the date of the special event.
(2) The notification shall be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the organisers of the special event and shall specify—
(a) the place and hour of the special event,
(b) the nature of the special event;
(c) the time of commencement;

(d) the proposed route and destination, if any; and
(e) proposed time of closure of the event.
(3) The notification shall be submitted to a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police or other police officer responsible for the nearest police station to the location of the proposed special event.
(4) Where a police officer notified of a special event under subsection (1) has reasonable grounds to believe that the special event if held may lead to violence or endanger public defence, public order, public safety, public health or the running of essential services or violate the rights and freedoms of other persons, he may request the organisers to postpone the special event to any other date or to the relocate the special event.
(5) An organiser requested under subsection (4) to postpone or relocate the holding of a special ever shall within forty-eight hours of the request, notify the police officer in writing of his willingness to comply.
(6) Where the organisers refuse to comply with the request under subsection (4) or fail to notify the police officer in accordance with subsection (5), the police officer may apply to any judge or a chairman of a Tribunal for an order to prohibit the holding of the special event on the proposed date or at the proposed location.
(7) The judge or chairman may make such order as he considers to be reasonably required in the interest of defence, public order, public safety, public health, the running of essential services or to prevent violation of the rights and freedoms of other persons.

(2)              Section 2-Control of Routes and Crowds.

(1)               It shall be the responsibility of every police officer to take all such steps as are reasonably necessary in any public place—
(a) to assist in the proper conduct of any special event by directing the routes of such event to prevent obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
(b) to disperse crowds at any special event where he has reasonable grounds to believe that a breach of the peace is likely to occur or if any breach of the peace has Occurred or is occurring in order to prevent violence, restore order and preserve the peace.
(2) The Police officer III charge of an area of a special event may cause to be closed such streets or parts thereof to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or both and may cause to be erected such barriers as may be necessary to preserve public order.

(2)              Section 3-Responsibility of Organisers and Other Persons.

(1)   Where at any special event any damage is caused to any public property, the organisers, or any other persons found to have been responsible for the damage caused shall be liable to pay for the cost of the damage.
(2) Any person taking part in a special event shall obey the directions of police officers safeguarding the proper movement of other persons and vehicles and generally maintain order.
(3) Any person taking part in a special event shall conduct himself in such a manner as to avoid causing obstruction of traffic, confusion or disorder.

(2)  Section 4-Power to Impose Curfew.(1) Where the Minister for the Interior considers that it is reasonably required in the interest of defence, public safety, public health, the running of essential services or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons to impose a curfew in any part of Ghana, he may by executive instrument impose a curfew in such part only of the country as shall be specified in the instrument.
(2) No instrument shall be issued under subsection (1) to impose a curfew in the whole of Ghana.
(3) The Minister shall on imposing a curfew notify Parliament as soon as practicable thereafter.
(4) No curfew shall be imposed for a period exceeding seven days at any one time under this Act.

(5) Where a curfew is imposed by instrument made under subsection (1) of this section, no person shall be out of doors between such hours as may be specified in the instrument except under the authority of a written permit granted by such person as may be specified in the instrument.
(6) An instrument imposing a curfew may exempt from its operation such persons or classes of persons as may be specified in it.
(7) An instrument imposing a curfew may authorise any person specified therein to suspend the operation of the curfew in any specified area or part.

Section 5-Power to Prohibit Manufacture, Possession of Arms.

(1) Where the Minister for the Interior considers that it is reasonably required in the interest of defence, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons to do so, he may by executive instrument prohibit any person from manufacturing, possessing or carrying arms or ammunition within any part of Ghana specified in the instrument.
(2) An instrument issued under subsection (1) may exclude from its operation such classes of persons as the Minister may think fit.
(3) An instrument issued under subsection (1) may in lieu of prohibiting the manufacture, possession or carrying of arms, permit the possession or carrying of arms subject to such conditions as the Minister may think fit.
(4) An instrument issued under subsection (1) may contain provisions for requiring persons in possession of arms or ammunition to deposit them with such person or authority as may be prescribed in the instrument and for matters connected with it.
(5) Any arms or ammunition deposited with any person or authority in accordance with an instrument issued under subsection (1) shall be returned to the person entitled to them on the instrument ceasing to have effect where there is authority to bold the arms or ammunition.

Section 6-Power of Arrest.

A police officer may arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects on reasonable grounds of possessing or carrying arms in contravention of an instrument issued under section 5 of this Act.

Section 7-Power of Search.

(1) A District Magistrate or Chairman of a Community Tribunal may issue a warrant under his hand authorising any police officer to enter and search any buildings or premises in which any arms or ammunition are suspected to be in contravention of an instrument issued under section 5 of this Act.

(2) A warrant issued under this section shall be valid notwithstanding that the buildings or premises are not specified further therein than being buildings or premises in or about the specified town or village.

Section 8-Forfeiture of Arms and Ammunition Seized

Any arms or ammunition found in the possession of, or being carried by any person in contravention of an instrument made under section 5 of this Act shall be seized and unless it is shown that failure to deposit them in accordance with the instrument was due to inadvertence or other reasonable excuse, shall be forfeited to the State.

Section 9-Offence and Penalties

Any person who—
(a) fails to notify the police of any special event contrary to section (1); or
(b) fails to inform the police of his unwillingness to comply with a request contrary to section 1 (5); or
(c) takes part in any special event knowing that no notification has been given to the police; or
(d) acts contrary to a curfew imposed under this Act; or
(e) manufactures, possesses or carries arms or ammunition contrary to a prohibition imposed under this Act; or
(f) acts contrary to any provision in section 3 commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding ¢2 million or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or to both.

Section 10-Interpretation

In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
"ammunition" includes explosives, all ammunitions of war and all materials for loading firearms;
"arms" includes firearms and offensive weapons of all descriptions, artillery, apparatus for the discharge of all kinds of projectiles, explosive or gas-diffusing flame-throwers, bombs, grenades, machine-guns and rifled small-bore breech-loading weapons of all kinds, and includes also all parts of any of the foregoing;
"firearms" includes any gun, rifle, machine-gun, cap-gun, flint-lock gun or pistol, revolver, cannon or other firearms, and any air gun, air pistol, whether whole or in detached pieces;
"Minister" means the Minister responsible for the Interior;
"offensive weapon" means an article made or adapted for causing injury to a person or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him;
"organisers" means the person or persons who signed the notification provided for under section 1(2) or on whose behalf the notification was signed;
"public place" means a place to which, at the material time, the public have or are permitted to have access whether on payment or otherwise;
"pecial event" means procession, parade, carnival, street dance celebration of traditional custom, outdooring of traditional ruler,
demonstration, public meeting and similar event but does not include—
(a) religious meeting;
(b) charitable, social or sporting gathering;
(c) any lawful public entertainment or meeting.

Section 11-Repeal

The Public Order Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 68) and the Public Order (Amendment) Law, 1983 (P.N.D.C.L. 48) are hereby repealed.

Editorial

SOMEBODY MUST STOP THE POLICE

 The Ghana Police Service has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution as law enforcement agencies.

It is for this reason that The Insight is deeply worried about the blatant violations of the law by the Police.

Over the last couple of months, the police demonstrations.

We insist that the police has no authority to ban demonstrations.

The Insight urges all organisations interested in the preservation of the democratic rights of citizens to protest the illegal actions of the police.

The Police must be told in plain language that it is not above the law and cannot take the law into its own hands.

Somebody must stop the police from violating the law.

The Fallacies of J. B. Danquahs Heroic Legacy (IV)

J.B Danquah

Dedicated to Nana Akumfi Ameyaw of Takyiman, “A True National Hero,” who together with the Brong-Kyempem Federation, saved the Country from a Civil War, threatened by the NLM-NPP Declaration of Secessionism on Nov. 2, 1956.

What I have been trying to show in my articles is that Dr. J. B. Danquah was not “a compatriot saint of Ghana” or “a pathfinder” of Ghana’s politics as President Kufuor claimed in his February 2005 public pronouncement. Certainly, since he was rejected by his own Akyem Abuakwa electorate in the 1954 and 1956 general elections, Danquah could not have been “the best Prime Minister Ghana never had,” as contained in President Kufuor’s speech. Based on his pro-British Empire stands (read Part III of this series), absolute contempt for the ordinary people, anti-electoral process, secessionist assertion, and the coup plots against Kwame Nkrumah’s government, Danquah does not deserve to have the University of Ghana renamed after him, as urged by Osagyefo Amoatia Ofori Panin of Akyem Abuakwa in February 2005. As stated in my introductory article, President Kufuor and the Okyehene’s views, and the serialized articles by Dr. Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr. (whose father was a foot soldier of Kwame Nkrumah, a Young Pioneer official and a graduate of the School of Music and Drama at Legon) suffer from a severe historical amnesia. They were deliberately orchestrated to honor Danquah in a big way during the coming 50th Anniversary of Ghana’s independence. Otherwise, why would President Kufuor appoint Mr. Tony Oteng-Gyasi as Chairman of the University of Ghana Council (Ghanaweb, July 11, 2006)?

The Undemocratic Behavior of Danquah and His Allies after the 1956 Election. In November of 1957, a Commission of Enquiry, headed by the British Judge J. Jackson, found serious abuses of power by the Akyem Abuakwa State Council, in terms of its willful promotion of the NLM as the sole party of the State. In its findings, the Jackson Commission accused Ofori Atta II of failing to behave “as an impartial statesman.” He was also accused of using “coercion to bring other chiefs into line,” in such a case as the oath-taking to support J. B. Danquah and the NLM. Additionally, the Commission found an abuse of power in the appointment of Danquah as Twafohene, and in the financial manipulation of the State Council in favor of Danquah and the NLM. During the Commission’s sittings, Danquah categorically denounced the authority of the government saying that the people of Akyem were not subject to the laws of Ghana (see the Report of Jackson Commission, 1958). The irony is that the Akyem Abuakwa electorate rejected all the five NLM candidates (including Danquah himself) in the 1956 election. Because of the Jackson Commission’s findings, Nana Kena II called a meeting of a section of the State Council at Kukurantumi on June 13, 1958, at which time Ofori Atta II was glumly deposed as Omanhene, while Nana Kena II was appointed as Regent (Simensen, 1975).

In his July 13, 1959 letter to Mr Brockway in London, J. B. Danquah said, “I was against any election as premature and favoured Constituent Assembly,” where the pre-ordained rulers would be selected to rule (see Historic Speeches of Danquah). To understand Danquah’s reason for disregarding the electoral process and disrespecting the CPP victories and Nkrumah’s government, we must point to the root of Danquah’s political ideology. Aside from being a “tame student of Kant’s moral philosophy” (Danquah, Vol. 1), Danquah (including Busia) echoed and practiced Edmund Burke’s ideology of the rule by the preordained elite (Bankole, 1963; Bing, 1968). Burke’s political philosophy was developed at Oxford University into an ideology that the elite is born to rule the world. Thus, it does society great harm, Burke reasoned, if the masses (affirming Aristotle’s views that the masses should have been slaves) are allowed to participate in governance by voting. So, since Kwame Nkrumah was a goldsmith’s son with some “ntafo” (Northerners) in his government (Danquah’s infamous remarks), and since the CPP was voted into power mostly by the ordinary people, Danquah and Busia considered the CPP government illegitimate and dangerous to the society; and hence must be destroyed. Accordingly, Dr. K. A. Busia and the NLM warned the British government in August of 1955 of grisly aftereffects, if the country attained independence under the CPP government (Ninisn, 1991). It was also for the same reason that the Danquah-Busia camp resorted to the undemocratic methods and terrorist bomb attacks to overthrow the democratically elected government of Kwame Nkrumah, before Ghana’s independence.

1. On November 10, 1955, Nkrumah’s house was bombed while he was resting and working in his house with his secretary and others because of a terrible cold. 2. On August 3, 1956, the Opposition boycotted the constitutional debate tabled by the CPP government. 3. On November 20, 1956, the NLM and NPP sent a resolution to the Secretary for Colonies, demanding separate independence for Asante and Northern Territories (McFarland & Owusu-Ansah, 1995). 4. Before independence, Dr. Busia traveled to London to make a plea to the British Government to deny granting independence to Ghana. He said, “We still need you in the Gold Coast…Your experiment there is not complete. Sometimes I wonder why you seem such in a hurry to wash your hands off us (Nkrumah, 1957). 5. On the eve of Ghana’s Independence on March 6, 1957, the Ewe Unificationists, led by S.G. Antor (Danquah’s buddy), formed themselves into a ragged guerilla army in Alavanyo and prepared for an armed insurrection with homemade guns against the CPP government. (See my Thesis for M.A. Degree in History, 1977). The Governor- General sent troops to the region to put down the revolt (Mahoney, 1983).

What we must keep in mind is that Kwame Nkrumah’s Government had just inherited four fragmented territories from the British Government, when these primitive acts of terrorism became the language of the Opposition. This was manifested by the undemocratic and/or violent activities of sectarian groups in Asante, Accra and Volta Region. But the first duty of any government is to preserve the internal security of the country and govern. Hence, the consolidation of national unity and security for which the Ghanaian electorate voted was strengthened by the parliament’s enactment of the Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1957 (Act 1), and the Preventive Detention Act of 1958 (Act 17). These laws were debated in parliament before their enactment and the consent of the British Governor-General. The first Act was for the deportation of aliens found to be “engaged in activities inimical to the unity, security and stability of the Ghanaian state” (Ninsin, 1991). The act only renewed the powers previously possessed and exercised by the Colonial Government. The second Act, the PDA, “made it possible for the government to imprison, without trial, some Ghanaians whose activities were found to be prejudicial to the state security and stability.” As such, it was an emergency measure to foster a strong national unity against both ethnocentrism and the “danger of fragmentation,” and national rivalry (Ninsin). These Acts became the laws of the land by which the people, irrespective of (one’s) social status, profession, political affiliation or ethnic background, had to live. On the contrary, the disjointed Opposition disregarded these laws and continued its vow to make the country ungovernable in order to overthrow the CPP government by violence. To this end, the government issued a White Paper in 1959 registering its unadulterated vow “to the very existence of the state of Ghana by [not] allowing to go unchecked plots and conspiracies which might result in the destruction of the state itself” (Ninsin). Two measures were taken: (i) “the elimination of sectarian or sectional tendencies which militate against the unity and security of the Ghanaian state; and (ii) the elimination of the structural basis of the tendency toward national fragmentation.” This reinforced the “Avoidance of Discrimination Act” of 1957, which forbade “racial, tribal, regional as well as religious political organizations and propaganda” (Ninsin). Above all, it produced the United Party for all the political parties to become one thereby reinforcing the unity of the nation-state of Ghana, Prof. Kwame Ninsin explained. Was this an act of dictatorship? The other alternative would have been an outright proscription and the closure of the offices of the ethno-regional and parochial political parties in Ghana. Yet, the Opposition, now turned enemy of the State, accelerated its acts of terrorism to make the country ungovernable.

1. After the passage of the Avoidance Act, the anti-Nkrumah movement, the Ga-Shifimo Kpee, was formally launched in Accra, where a sheep was slaughtered and oaths were sworn against all ‘strangers,’ including Nkrumah who was accused of encumbering a Ga constituency seat. Strangely, Danquah and S. G. Antor were in attendance. From then, on the organization’s youth wing, “Tokyo Joes,” thronged themselves at vantage points in Accra hooting and jeering at Nkrumah and the CPP leaders. After his trip from abroad, Nkrumah was met with placards reading: “Welcome Mr. Dictator,” “PM Is Goldsmith Your father’s name?” etc. (Austin, 1964; Awoonor, 1991, Bing, 1974). 2. In 1958, there was a plot to assassinate Nkrumah at the airport and then overthrow the CPP government as Nkrumah was about to leave for a state visit to India. The plot was discovered and the plotters were arrested (Forward Ever, 1977). 3. On July 7, 1961, two bombs exploded in Accra, one wrecking Nkrumah’s statue in front of the Parliament House (McFarland &Owusu-Ansah). 4. In September 1961, there was a conspiracy among the senior Ghanaian military officers, but the plot collapsed because of the death of the chief conspirator Brigadier General Joseph E. Michel in an airplane crash (Mahoney, 1983). 5. On August 1, 1962, as Nkrumah was returning form a state visit to Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), and had gotten out of his car to speak to the school children in the crowd that had gathered to greet him at Kulungugu, a bomb contained in a bouquet carried to him by a schoolgirl, exploded; it killed several school children and injured many others. The victims’ bodies bled from cuts caused by the splinters from the bomb (Kanu 1982; Tetteh, 1999). Nkrumah sustained a serious injury but he refused to have any device to deaden his pain while the operation went on. 6. On September 9, 1962, another bomb exploded near the “Flagstaff House, where the Ghana Young Pioneers Orchestra Band was entertaining the audience to modern Ghanaian Music.” The explosion killed one person and injured many others (Tetteh). 7. On September 18, 1962, two bombs exploded in Accra killing and injuring many people. One of these bomb blasts occurred in Lucas House in Accra, where nine children fell dead on the spot with their intestines gushed out of their bodies (Tetteh). 8. September 20, 1962, two bombs exploded in Accra, killing and injuring several people (McFarland & Owusu-Ansah). 9. On September 22, 1962, there was another bomb explosion in Accra (McFarland & Owusu-Ansah; Tetteh). 10. On January 11, 1963, another bomb exploded at a CPP rally at the Accra Sports Stadium shortly after Nkrumah had left the scene. This explosion killed over twenty people and more than four hundred people were injured; among the victims were children of the Young Pioneer movement (McFarland & Owusu-Ansah). 11. January 1, 1964, a police officer, Seth Ametewe, was posted on guard duty at the Flagstaff House to assassinate Nkrumah. His five shots missed Nkrumah, but succeeded in killing his personal security officer, Sgt. Salifu Dagarti. The question is, what government would permit these primitive and terrorist methods of attack by an opposing political party? In the light of these senseless, barbaric bomb attacks against the founder of Ghana, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the Young Pioneers and other school children, how was the CPP government going to protect and develop the newly independent State of Ghana? The main reason for the repeated bomb attacks against the Ghana Young Pioneers, according to Dr. Tetteh, was that Nkrumah’s enemies saw in the Ghana Young Pioneers movement (of which I was a member at Koforidua) “the source of permanent power if allowed to last for at least one generation or 35 years.” At any rate, given Dr. J. B. Danquah’s hostility towards the democratic process and given his open statement during the Jackson Commission of 1958 indicating that the laws of Ghana did not apply to him, was it surprising that he resorted to undemocratic and violent methods? As demonstrated above, J. B. Danquah and his cronies chose the uncivilized methods and terrorism, including collaboration with the CIA to kill Kwame Nkrumah and overthrow his government. Was this what Danquah meant when he said that Nkrumah would pay with his neck for the Positive Action crusade in 1950? What a shameful legacy!

Therefore, President Kufour should, on the 50th Anniversary of Ghana’s Independence and in the spirit of a true reconciliation, pardon J. B. Danquah and his cronies for their coup plots and/or their senseless bomb attacks that killed and maimed several Young Pioneers and other school children, instead of promoting him as a national hero.

Kwame Botwe-Asamoah, Ph.D. Professor of African and African American History University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
** I am not in a debate with any person or persons who express emotions, because debate, as we know, is the art of debunking the data of one’s opponent with facts.

US; the real global terror alert

US President Hussein Obama and George Bush

By Finian Cunningham

Sixty-eight years ago this week, the United States wiped out more than 200,000 people when it dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Tens of thousands more victims were to die over the ensuing years due to slow, painful deaths from cancers and birth defects. 

Yet the US - the only state to have ever used atomic weapons - has never apologized or made any atonement for this singularly horrific crime. Officially, the US justifies it as a legitimate attack during war even though many historical sources show that there was absolutely no military necessity for the bombings. 

Even former president and top military commander Dwight Eisenhower would later go on record as saying that the A-bomb attacks on Japan in August 1945 were completely unnecessary.

The unleashing of the atomic infernos on mostly civilian populations was simply this: an act of supreme terrorism. It was an act of barbarity callously calculated by the US planners to demonstrate their country’s demonic power to the rest of the world - and the Soviet Union in particular. This premeditated rationale makes it an unpardonable crime of the highest order.

Fast-forward sixty-eight years on, the US government has this week issued a global terror alert, closing down more than 20 diplomatic sites across the world and vacating staff from various countries. Following suit are the British and French governments who have shut their embassies in Yemen on the basis of an unspecified, secret terror alert issued by Washington. 

The rest of the world is thus obliged to believe the word of Washington over this unverifiable warning. 

Of course, it is a propaganda stunt, aimed at renewing the whole fraudulent ‘war on terror’ charade and distracting from recent politically embarrassing developments, such as the vast scope of illegal surveillance against US citizens and the rest of the world; or the increasing public awareness of the collusion between American and Western intelligence and regime-change terrorism in Syria. 

This is the same American political establishment that launched wars on Afghanistan and Iraq on the back of spurious and outright mendacious claims over the alleged 9/11 terror attacks and weapons of mass destruction. 

This is the same government, along with Britain and France, that secretly claims the Syrian armed forces of President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons - when the hard evidence is that it is actually the US-backed foreign mercenaries who have launched these weapons to kill civilians. 

This week, the US military killed more people in Yemen with its assassination drones under presidential executive orders, just as it has done every week over the past 10 years as it wages covert and overt criminal wars in several countries simultaneously. 

These US-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya and Syria have caused as many as two million, mainly civilian, deaths. 

And yet ludicrously, the US government is putting the world on alert against terrorism. Even more ludicrously, the Western news media are amplifying this warning from the world’s biggest terrorist state as if it is a benign service to international public safety.

In this awful anniversary week of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it is rather astounding that the perpetrator of that genocide is still strutting the globe as if it is God almighty. On a global terrorist offender list, the United States is the paramount offender without compare. 

In a saner world, the US should be a pariah state, shunned and sanctioned, its government leaders past and present locked away for life. 

Perhaps, the world is finally beginning to wake up from the illusory spell that it has been kept under till now, to realize that humanity’s security is threatened not by states such as Iran or North Korea, but by the one whose president is a Nobel Peace laureate. 

The US terror state slaps sanctions on Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Zimbabwe and others, causing women and children to die from medial and other basic deprivations. But what we should realize is that this is not depraved double standards or hypocrisy. No, such criminality is simply consistent with the actions of American state terrorism.

Iran does not have any nuclear weapons, yet it is being strangled with illegal trade sanctions by the world’s number-one nuclear terrorist - the US - and its rogue partners, Britain, France and Israel. 

Today, there are some 17,000 total nuclear weapons in the world. About half of them are possessed by the US. The other major holder of such weapons is Russia. 

In Russia’s defense, it would most likely not have this atomic stockpile if it were not for the fact that the US embarked on the Cold War with its act of genocide at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. 

Stalin knew that that act of terror by US President Truman was aimed at Moscow by way of demarcating the post-war lines of global hegemony. By 1948, the Soviet Union had acquired the A-bomb and the world was then well on the road to mutually assured destruction - in direct consequence of the US original act of nuclear terrorism on Japan. 

Perhaps more frightening than the planet-destroying power of US-held nuclear weapons is the monstrous mentality of the American ruling class that wields them, including its mass media propaganda system. 

In the same week that the world should be mourning the dead of Hiroshima,
Nagasaki and many other victims of US state terrorism, we are instead expected to pander to the “terror warnings” of American politicians and their media as if they should be taken seriously and virtuously. 

These American leaders should be in prison, not promulgating to the rest of the world. 

The truly appalling thing is that the world’s number-one terror state is still at large.

Why Did Washington Hate Hugo Chavez?

Hugo Chavez

Eva Golinger, winner of the International Award for Journalism in Mexico (2009), named “La Novia de Venezuela” by President Hugo Chávez, is an Attorney and Writer from New York, living in Caracas, Venezuela since 2005 and author of the best-selling books, “The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela” (2006 Olive Branch Press), “Bush vs. Chávez: Washington’s War on Venezuela” (2007, Monthly Review Press), “The Empire’s Web: Encyclopedia of Interventionism and Subversion”, “La Mirada del Imperio sobre el 4F: Los Documentos Desclasificados de Washington sobre la rebelión militar del 4 de febrero de 1992” and “La Agresión Permanente: USAID, NED y CIA”. Since 2003, Eva, a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College and CUNY Law School in New York, has been investigating, analyzing and writing about US intervention in Venezuela using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain information about US Government efforts to undermine progressive movements in Latin America. Her first book, The Chávez Code, has been translated and published in 8 languages (English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Russian, Farsi & Turkish) and is presently being made into a feature film.

Mike Whitney: There was very limited coverage of Hugo Chavez’s death in the United States. Can you briefly describe the reaction of the Venezuelan people?

Eva Golinger: Chavez’s death was devastating for Venezuelans. Despite knowing about his illness, most Venezuelans thought he would win the battle against cancer like so many other battles he won before. The reaction was a collective cry of deep despair and sadness, but also of love, profound love for this person, this man who gave every last breath he had to making his country a better place for all. Ten days of mourning were officially declared in the country and Chavez’s casket was placed for millions to pay respects to before the final funeral occurred. People spent up to 36 hours waiting in line to say goodbye to Chavez at the Military Academy where his political consciousness came to life, and where his casket was placed temporarily after his shocking death.

Then, on the tenth day, a mass parade of people accompanied Chavez’s funeral procession to the hilltop “Cuartel de la Montaña” (Barracks of the Mountain) across from the presidential palace Miraflores in Caracas, where he was laid to rest in a strikingly beautiful tomb called “The Four Elements”. The Cuartel de la Montaña is where Chavez launched his political career in February 1992 during an attempted military rebellion against a corrupt and murderous neo-liberal president. He failed at that attempt and went to prison, but his message and charisma reached millions, who joined his movement that later led to his election as president in 1998. Chavez’s tomb site, “The Four Elements”, includes his casket resting on top of a beautifully sculpted lilypad on fresh water and clean earth. It sits in the open air with a burning eternal flame. Still to this day hundreds of Venezuelans visit the site, hoping for a chance to be close to their beloved president.

MW: Chavez was an inspirational and charismatic leader who was able to push through progressive policies that benefited the majority of people. Will the Bolivarian Revolution continue under current Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro or has there been a shift in direction?

EG: The Bolivarian Revolution is continuing with President Maduro, there has been no shift in direction. Despite winning the presidential election in April with a narrow margin, Maduro has not altered Chavez’s policies in any significant way, in fact, he is trying to consolidate them further. He did change many cabinet members, but this was viewed as a positive move, especially because he brought in a lot of younger, unorthodox people instead of sticking with those who had been shuffled around Chavez’s administration for years. He did keep many of Chavez’s people, because of course Maduro is one of them, but he brought in fresh blood to show he was willing to make some necessary changes. For example, he named a frequent critic of Chavez’s community-based policies, Reinaldo Iturriza, as Minister of Communes, which is a ministry dedicated to helping organized communities with resource management and project development. Iturriza himself was a grassroots organizer and he replaced a bureaucrat. Maduro has so far kept the economic policies of Chavez’s government, though he changed the cabinet members in charge of them. He has cracked down harder on government corruption and crime. Dozens of public officials have already been arrested for corruption and he militarized high crime areas in order to get violence and insecurity under control. So I would say he picked up where Chavez left off and accelerated.

MW: Could you sum up some of Chavez’s most important achievements as President?

EG: Chavez’s achievements as President are vast and numerous. He transformed Venezuela from a dependent, cowardly nation with no national identity, mass poverty and stark apathy to a sovereign, independent and dignified country, full of national pride, cherishing its rich cultural diversity. He also reduced poverty by well over 50%, implemented successful, quality free universal healthcare and education programs and diversified the economy with the creation of new industries in the nation and thousands of new small business owners and cooperatives. One of his greatest achievements has been the collective awakening of consciousness in the country. Venezuela was so apathetic before Chavez became President, worse than the United States.

Today it is a place where elections draw over 80% voluntary participation. Everyone talks about politics and issues of importance to the nation. Youth want to participate in the construction of their country, their future. Over the past few years the youngest members of Congress (National Assembly) have been elected in history, with legislators as young as 25 years old. Half of the members of Maduro’s new executive cabinet are under 45. There are new youth movements, student movements – both opposition and chavista – that are active and participating in political life. And there is no question that Chavez’s social policies and over 60% investment of the national budget annually in social programs made a massive difference in everyday Venezuelans’ lives. Today there is more consumer power, Venezuelans enjoy better nutrition, have more dignified homes and Chavez also propelled worker-friendly laws that guarantee a living wage (the highest minimum wage in Latin America) and strong workers’ benefits. There are many things he was unable to complete, but what he did achieve is extraordinary for a bit more than a decade in power, considering he also had to transform corrupt, inefficient and broken state institutions and face a US-backed opposition with immense economic power.

MW: You have written extensively about US intelligence agencies and NGO covert activities in Venezuela. Do you see any sign that the meddling has decreased since Chavez died?

EG: No. US intervention in Venezuela has progressively increased each year since Chavez was first elected in 1998. During the April 2002 coup d’etat against him, which was defeated by the people and loyal armed forces, the US was backing the opposition, but with moderate aid considering what they are doing today. Each year, funding for anti-Chavez groups has increased by millions, coming through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the State Department, and other US-funded agencies, such as Freedom House, International Republican Institute (IRI) and National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). In fact, Obama not only increased the funding to anti-Chavez groups, he made it even more official by openly including such funding in the annual Foreign Operations Budget. There is a special paragraph dedicated to funding for Venezuelan opposition groups, or as they call it, “democracy promotion”.

I have extensively proven in my investigations that this funding has gone to finance destabilization and very undemocratic organizations and activities in Venezuela. We know from documents released by Wikileaks and more recently by Edward Snowden, that US espionage in Venezuela increased exponentially this year, as Chavez’s health worsened. The US threw a massive amount of economic and political power behind losing presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, and has been the only nation to refuse to officially recognize President Nicolas Maduro’s electoral victory in April. Washington will continue to back the opposition in hopes that Maduro’s term can be recalled in a referendum in three years, when he’s reached the halfway point of his six-year term and constitutionally can be held accountable in a recall referendum. The US is banking on achieving his ouster then, if not before through other undemocratic means. Several leading opposition members have been caught recently in plots to attempt a coup against Maduro, as well as plan his assassination. All of them frequently travel to Washington for “meetings”. The Venezuelan government also recently ended a dialogue established with Washington that began in January after offensive statements made by incoming US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. Maduro’s administration, like Chavez’s, longs to have a respectful relationship with the US government. But they will not stand for aggression, meddling, or otherwise interventionist behavior. The US seems unable to engage in a mature, respectful relationship with Venezuela.

MW: Here’s something that Barack Obama said in an interview with Univision when Chavez was on his deathbed. He said, “The most important thing is to remember that the future of Venezuela should be in the hands of the Venezuelan people. We’ve seen from Chávez in the past authoritarian policies, suppression of dissent.”

Was there a reaction to Obama’s comment in Venezuela?

EG: Definitely there was a very strong reaction. First of all, the comments were viewed as completely disrespectful to the nation and government at a time when Chavez’s health was deteriorating. They clearly indicated that the Obama administration is ignorant about Venezuela and has no concern for the massive, collective emotional difficulties millions in the country were experiencing due to Chavez’s failing health. President Chavez’s number one objective – which he achieved to a great extent – was transferring power to the people. Obama’s hypocrisy in such a statement overshadows his own failure to comprehend Venezuela’s reality. More people in Venezuela participate in political life than ever before, and many more than in the US (percentage-wise). In an era of mass espionage, selective assassinations, drones, secret prisons, grave human rights violations and other repressive policies led by the US, Obama should think twice about characterizing another nation’s government that he only knows about from talking points uninformed analysts provide him with. In sum, Venezuelans were outraged as Obama’s insensitive and disrespectful remarks, but they were not surprised. Those comments are typical of Washington’s hostile position towards Venezuela throughout the Chavez administration.

MW: Why did Washington hate Chavez?

EG: I suppose Washington hated Chavez for many reasons. Of course the oil is a primary source of Washington’s aggressive attitude towards Chavez. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on the planet and before Hugo Chavez was elected, governments were subservient to US interests. In fact, Venezuela was on the verge of privatizing its oil industry, along with everything else in the country, right when Chavez was elected. So the fact that a head of state sitting on the world’s largest oil reserves – which the US needs to maintain its excessive consumer model in the long term – would not be subordinate to US agenda was maddening for Washington. Chavez not only reclaimed and transformed the oil industry to redistribute the wealth and ensure foreign corporations abided by the laws (paying taxes and royalties, for example), but he also nationalized other strategic resources in the country that the US had its hands in, such as gold, electricity and telecommunications.

Clearly Chavez was a major thorn in Washington’s economic interests in the region. Once Chavez spearheaded the creation of Latin American integration and cooperation, that converged into organizations such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), as well as PetroCaribe, Telesur (the region’s first television network) and many more initiatives, Washington quickly began to lose influence in the region. This also led to more hostility towards Chavez, since he was the major leader and driving force behind Latin American independence and sovereignty in the XXI century. Washington, and the Venezuelan elite, also couldn’t stand Chavez’s mannerisms and direct way of telling things like they are. He was afraid of nothing and no one and never stood down, he always remained firm and said what he believed, even if it wasn’t the diplomatically correct thing to say. And Washington hated him for bringing back the evil concept of socialism to today’s world. They tried to hard to rid the planet of anything remotely like communism in the XX century, so Chavez’s “Socialism of the XXI Century” was a slap in the face for old school Washington, which still holds the reigns in the US.

MW: Would you like to add your personal thoughts about Chavez’s passing?

EG: Chavez’s death is impossible to accept. He was such a vibrant, motivating force, full of love and genuine affection for people and life. He had an extraordinary capacity of communication and could connect with anyone in a sincere embrace of humanity. He was a brilliant visionary and a maker of dreams. He helped people see the potential within themselves and realize our capabilities. He adored his country, its rich culture, music, diversity, and he truly gave every piece of himself to building a dignified, strong and beautiful Venezuela. I was one of the fortunate ones to be his close friend and share many exceptional moments with him. He had weaknesses and imperfections, like we all do, but his capacity to love and care about all people led him to overcome many difficult – almost impossible – obstacles. He really believed he would defeat cancer, and of course we all hoped he would. His passing leaves a deep emptiness and profound sadness for millions. His energy was so infinite, it’s hard to not feel it everywhere still, around us, leading and guiding the revolution he helped build. That’s why it’s so difficult to accept his leaving, because he is still so present in our lives, and of course in every inch of Venezuela. Chavez became Venezuela, la patria querida, and his legacy will continue to grow and flourish as Venezuela blossoms into its full potential.

Mikec Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. Whitney’s story on declining wages for working class Americans appears in the June issue of CounterPunch magazine. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.