 |
| Mr Kofi Amoah |
By Kwasi
Koffi
Corrupt
Public officials who dip their long fingers into state coffers could end up at
the firing range if the suggestion by a businessman is taken seriously.
Dr Kofi Amoah a business tycoon says corrupt
public officials ought to suffer the death penalty.
He was
speaking in an interview on TV3’s current affairs programme “Hot Issues”
Asked what
can be done about corruption, he said “ I have always advocated the death
penalty for corrupt public officials”
Dr Amoah
believes that corruption is one of the major causes of under development and
the poverty of the masses.
On the
continuing depreciation of the cedi, he said the value of the national currency
is only a symptom of the problem.
“The real
problem is that we are not producing enough” he said.
He claimed
that over reliance on the prescriptions of the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) has not helped in the resolution of the economic problems facing
Ghana.
He said it
was important for Ghana to learn the important lessons in China’s movement from
a backward economy to a modern prosperous economy.
STRANGE
Last week, we
were told that a Moroccan company had arrived in Accra with a proposal to build
houses.
In spite of the fact that Morocco has no
experience in social housing, we would normally have seen this development as
positive because of the huge deficit in housing any attempt to build more houses
especially for the poor need to be appreciated.
Our problem
however is that we are told that the meeting of the Moroccan company officials
and our Government representatives were held behind closed – doors?
What is so
secret about an ordinary housing project that discussions about it need to be
done behind closed doors?
Or are we
being told that the issues discussed at this meeting went beyond building
houses?
And if
indeed, they went beyond building houses what were the issues?
Morocco has left the African Union on account
of the AU’s position on her colonial occupation of Western Sahara.
Ghana fully
endorses the position of the African Union and has given full recognition to
the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic.
Ghana also
led the struggle for decolonisation in Africa and as a matter of principle she
cannot go back on her opposition to colonialism.
It is our hope that the discussions behind
closed-doors did not involve any suggestion that Ghana could change her
position on the issues of the independence for Western Sahara.
The colonial occupation of Western Sahara by
Morocco must be ended and there can be no compromise on this.
LEE
OCRAN PEAKS TODAY ON “THE HISTORY, FEBRUARY 24TH NKRUMAH AND GHANA”
Below is the full text of a lecture delivered by
Ambassador Lee Ocran, former Minister of Education at the Freedom Centre in
Accra yesterday
“THOSE WHO CONTROL THE PAST CONTROL THE PRESENT.
THOSE WHO CONTROL THE PRESENT CONTROL THE FUTURE”
_ George Orwell
Author – Animal Farm
 |
| Ambassador Lee Ocran |
Prior to 1947
there was no political party in the Gold Coast that had as its mission the
objective of ending colonial rule and attaining self-government for the people
of the Gold Coast. Of course there had been various nationalist movements like
the Aborigines Rights Protection Society, The Rate Payers Party and the Maabi
Party but these had limited and narrow objectives.
THE FORMATION OF THE UGCC
In 1947 an
Nzima timber merchant from Axim called George Alfred Grant (aka Paa Grant)
decided to form a political movement to protect his and other indigenous Gold
Coast business people’s interest against European competitors.
Paa Grant,
reputed to be the wealthiest Gold Coaster of his time had seen his fortunes
decline together with that of his hometown Axim, following the construction of
the Takoradi harbour and the redirection of most commercial activities to the
new port town. He had relocated his business to Sekondi but still faced
preferential treatment being given his European competitors by the railway
authorities in the haulage of timber from the interior to the harbour for
export.
After a
particularly flagrant case of favouritism shown by the Railways administration
to a rival English timber company, Mingle Mahogany Company, George Grant
summoned a Sekondi lawyer, R.S. Blay and discussed with him the need to form a
political party to fight for self-government in order to end the injustices
meted to the indigenous entrepreneurs and professionals, R.S. Blay contacted
Dr. J.B. Danquah, a lawyer who was active in politics and discussed the project
with him. Together, they contacted other prominent lawyers of the time namely
Awoonor-Renner, Edward Akuffo Addo, J.W. de Graft-Johnson, Obetsebi Lamptey,
and Ako Adjei.
Thus the UGCC
was formed, Paa Grant became the chairman with R.S Blay and J.B Danquah as his
two vice Chairmen. Ako Adjei, being the youngest was appointed Secretary. After
two years of operation he felt the position was having a negative effect on his
practice. He however recommended to the Executive, Kwame Nkrumah, a friend and
a Political activist he had met at Lincoln University as a perfect replacement.
The name rang a bell in Paa Grant’s ears, remembering him as one time teacher
in Axim and General Secretary of the Nzema literature and Cultural Association.
He immediately made £100 available for payment of the passage of Nkrumah back
to Ghana. This has been confirmed by Paa Grant’s daughter, Mrs. Sarah Esi
Grant-Acquah in her recollections published in the Daily Graphic of Wednesday,
February 14, 2007. So it was not Dr Danquah who paid for Nkrumah’s passage as
some people want us to believe. When Nkrumah returned to Ghana he stayed with
The Grants’ for about four months before he moved to Saltpond to commence work
as Secretary of the UGCC.
According to
Mrs. Grant-Acquah, Paa Grant was the main financier of the movement and anytime
The Executive met, he provided them with lunch and also filled their cars with
petrol before they returned to their bases.
Not long
differences over tactics developed between Nkrumah and other members of the
UGCC. This became very pronounced after the riots in 1948 that saw the
incarceration of the Executives, who after their release became the Big Six. In
fact they could have been the Big Seven if RS Blay had not escaped to Aiyinasi
in Nzema to avoid arrest.
THE FORMATION
OF THE CPP
Nkrumah eventually broke away from the UGCC to
form his own Party, the Convention Peoples Party which was inaugurated at the Accra Arena on
June 12, 1949 with Nkrumah as chairman,
Komla Gbedemah as his Vice and Kojo Botsio as Secretary. Where the UGCC
pledged to fight for self-government within the shortest possible time, the CPP
pledged self-government now and in this battle the CPP carried the masses with
them.
Thus the
seeds of Conservative/Progressive Political dichotomy which exists up to date
were sown.
Following the
disturbances the Governor set up the Watson Committee to look into the causes
of the riots and make recommendations to the Governor for Constitutional
reforms, having accepted that the provisions in the Burns Constitution did not
address the aspirations of the people of the Gold Coast.
As a result
of the recommendations made by the Watson Commission, the Coussey committee was
formed to draw up a new constitution for the Gold Coast. Although the Coussey
constitution did not grant self-government it made provisions for Gold Coasters
to be appointed to ministerial positions and the single chamber legislative
Assembly was entirely elected directly or indirectly except for four non-voting
and two voting members representing mining and commercial interests. The Northern Territories and the Togoland Trust
Territory were at last represented in the national legislature.
Nkrumah and
the CPP denounced The Coussey Committee report as ‘bogus and fraudulent’ and
demanded immediate self-government. The CPP threatened to launch a campaign of
“Positive Action’ if the government did not accede to its demands.
The Governor, Sir Charles Arden- Clarke was
unyielding and following the declaration of ‘Positive Action’ arrested and
imprisoned the leadership of the CPP and its allies in the Trades Union
movement. The Governor and his administration by this action thought that the
CPP and Nkrumah have been dealt a fatal blow and that presented the remnants of
the UGCC an opportunity to fill the vacuum thus created. Even a new moderate
political party – the National Democratic Party was created to achieve this objective.
However when Nkrumah broke away from the UGCC
the party’s fortunes began to dwindle and by the time the first elections were
held in 1951 it had almost become defunct.
The 1951
Elections
Following the
promulgation of the Coussey Constitution in 1951 the Governor announced that
general elections were to be held. This election was the first to be based on
universal adult suffrage and the first to be participated in by political
parties. It was also an opportunity for the two main political parties – the
UGCC of Danquah and the newly formed CPP of Kwame Nkrumah to show their
strength. The elections were held amid great fanfare and at the end the CPP won
by a landslide.
The CPP won all five municipal seats by huge
margins. In Accra, Nkrumah who was still in prison beat Obetsebi Lamptey, the
man who had unsuccessfully prevailed on the Ga State council to deport him
(Nkrumah) from Accra by 20,780 votes to 1451. In the rural electoral colleges
the CPP won 29 out of 33, the UGCC wining the two Akim Abuakwa seats by Nana
Ofori- Atta and Dr J.B Danquah Incidentally, this was the only elections
Danquah won in his political career. Of the popularly contested seats the CPP
won 34 out of the 38 seats.
Nkrumah was
immediately released and appointed leader of Government Business. The first
African Ministers were appointed.
The new
Ministers set out to work. The UGCC elements mellowed but never forgave
Nkrumah. They were just bidding their time.
Following a
constitutional amendment, what became known as the Nkrumah Constitution came
into being. This was to prepare the country eventually for self government
within the Commonwealth. A general election was therefore to be held in 1954
and if the CPP won with a good majority could lead to the granting of
independence in 1956. By this time the UGCC had become defunct and its leaders
together with those of the National Democratic Party (NDP) had formed the Ghana
Congress Party. A split within this party led to the formation of the Ghana
Nationalist Party led by Obetsebi-Lamptey.
The CPP once
again won the 1954 election gaining 72 seats out of 104 contested seats. The
Northern Peoples Party (NPP) which was formed to protect the interest of the
Northern half of the country won 12 seats making it the largest single
opposition party. The journey to independence was on course.
Then suddenly
on 19th September 1954 a new political party was launched in Kumasi
with Nana Baffuor Akoto, Asantehene’s Chief Linguist as its chairman. An
Ashanti based party; its main objective was to protect the interest of Ashanti
cocoa farmers from exploitation by the Central government.
At the time
Ashanti was the largest producer of the crop. It was true cocoa prices had been
going up on the world market since 1948 but by 1953 there had been only one price
increase. The farmers continued to receive 50% of the world price. By August
1954 the world price had increased further and instead of government announcing
price increase, rather introduced in the National Assembly the Cocoa Duty And
Development Fund (amendment) Bill. The purpose of the Bill was to peg the cocoa
price at 72s per load for four years i.e. for the duration of the Assembly
whether the price went up or down on the world market. The purpose was to curb
inflation and raise enough funds for development.
The NLM
linked its formation to the cocoa price and demanded a Federal form of
government. They protested the cocoa Bill was unjust to the cocoa farmer and
that Ashanti would be better off managing its own affairs and spending all the
income from cocoa within Ashanti instead of contributing to the development of
the whole country.
A month after
the formation of the NLM the Asanteman Council met and all the Chiefs with the
exception of the Kumawuhene pledged their support to the NLM. The Asanteman
Council went further by contributing £20,000 to the new Party.
Also throwing their support to the NLM were
the Ashanti intelligentsia, ex- CPP stalwarts who had been expelled or suspended from the Party
because they breached Party discipline and close Nkrumah associate like R.R.
Amponsah, Victor Owusu and Joe Appiah who either out of their own volition or
under pressure had to associate with their Ashanti Kinsmen.
The campaign
of the NLM was so much characterized by violence that CPP members in Ashanti were
forced to take refuge in Accra, notably Kaneshie Estates and Ashaiman. The
sister of Mr Krobo Edusei, a CPP Minister was assassinated in cold blood in
broad daylight. The violence went on for a long time but eventually the CPP
prevailed with support from the nearby Brong Ahafo Region which had been
created out of the Ashanti Region.
A
Parliamentary Select Committee that was set up to study the issue of federal
form of Government for the Gold Coast advised against it but the opposition was
adamant.
In a further
effort to resolve the issue, the Gold Coast Government asked the British
Government to send down a constitutional Adviser to advise on the issue of
federalism and a new constitution. Sir Frederick Bourne who was sent spent
nearly three months in the Gold Coast, traveling to all corner of the country
to discuss the issue. However when he went to Kumasi the leaders of the NLM
refused to meet him.
Sir Frederick
however issued his report and the government convened what came to be known as
the ACHIMOTA CONFERENECE to discuss the report. The NLM and its allies
boycotted the conference. The British, to the dismay of the CPP insisted that
if independence was to be granted, another election had to be held to appease
NLM adherents. This the CPP considered to be unfair to them since elections had
been held only two years earlier.
However to
ensure peace and national unity, the CPP agreed to the elections which it won
with 71 seats out of 104. When the new Assembly was formally opened, the
opposition, except for two members from Trans-Volta Togoland (Today’s Volta
Region) boycotted their benches. The opposition instead sent a delegation led
by their leader, K.A. Busia to plead with the British Government not to grant
independence to the Gold Coast because the country was not ready for it.
Hear him “We
still need you” (the British in the Gold Coast) he stated. “Your experiment
there is not yet complete. Sometimes I wonder why you seem, in such a hurry to
wash your hands off “us.”
This time the
British ignored him and pressed ahead with preparations for granting
independence to the Gold Coast.
On April 19th,
1956 when the Opposition realized that the British were bent on granting
independence to the country they issued this statement “If the British allowed
Gold Coast to become independent under the CPP, this will be a road that as far
as we can see, makes for the country of riot, rebellion, revolution the road
taken by those unhappy countries where one can only change the head of state or
the people who govern by armed insurrection after underground conspiracy and
sabotage” This statement was signed by all the opposition party leaders. Thus
if anybody thought that the attainment of independence was to end the violence,
then that person was mistaken. They never accepted the verdict of the people.
Immediately
after independence, the Avoidance of Discrimination Act was passed by
Parliament. This Act made illegal all tribal, religious, regional parties. The
opposition which had hitherto consisted of four or five separate elements e.g
the NLM, the Moslem Association, Anlo
Youth Association and the Northern Peoples Party (NPP) had to come together to
form the UNITED PARTY (UP) The Origin of the UP tradition.
Within a few
months after independence, there emerged in Accra the GA SHIFIMO KPEE (The Ga
Standfast Association). They organized themselves as a conspiracy, complete
with secret oaths and secret meetings addressed by masked speakers.
They started
creating havoc in Accra which forced the then Police Commissioner, an Englishman
to recommend the use of special powers to put down the insurrection. Nkrumah
however refused on the grounds that he would be branded dictatorial by the
hostile British press.
Then came the strange case of Major Ahwaitey
who was court-martialled on orders of the commanding General of the Ghana Armed
Forces, another Englishman called Paley, and dismissed from the service for
failing to report a conspiracy against Nkrumah’s life. Further investigations
implicated RR. Amponsah, General Secretary of the Opposition who became a
Minister in Busia’s Government. Also implicated was Modesto Apaloo another
Opposition leader. Amponsah had bought some military accoutrements in a London
shop under false name and sent them to an address in Lome.
During the
investigation, it was learnt that Nkrumah was to be assassinated while
inspecting a guard of honour. Both Amponsah and Apalloo were detained under the
Preventive Detention Act (PDA).
The
Preventive Detention Act had been passed in 1958 to curtail the violence being
perpetrated in the country by the opposition. It might be of interest to note
that in newly independent India , Jawaharlal Nehru had introduced a PDA to deal
with those who flouted the law, but whom, the law always difficult to apply in
such circumstances could not itself deal with. The same law was used in Kenya
by the British to deal with the Mau Mau Movement. Nkrumah, in Ghana’s case was
criticized by the British press as being dictatorial.
The violence however continued through
shootings and bomb throwings. On July 31st Nkrumah travelled to
Upper Volta to meet President Yameogo to discuss common custom issues. On his
return journey to Ghana, Nkrumah and his entourage made an unscheduled stop at
a place called Kulungugu where a school child was to present him with a bouquet
of flowers when a grenade was thrown. The child was killed outright. Nkrumah
was hit by small fragments in the back. A month later Tawiah Adamafio, The
Minister for Presidential Affairs and CPP General –Secretary, Ako Adjei, Foreign
Minister and Coffie Crabbe the CPP Executive Secretary were arrested on
suspicion of organizing the attack. In Accra itself grenades were thrown
killing thirty people and wounding over 300 others. This time the Police found
solid evidence. Obetsebi Lamptey who had recently returned from exile and
hiding at Bawaleshie disguised as a Mallam had been supplying the grenades and
paying those who threw them. He and six others, similarly implicated were found
guilty by Chief Justice Sir Arku Korsah sitting with Judges Van Lare and Akuffo
Addo. They were sentenced to death but the sentences were at once commuted to
imprisonment. Lamptey died at a side ward in hospital soon afterwards of cancer
of the liver in the presence of relatives. He was not fed to lions at the
Flagstaff house zoo as anti-Nkrumah Propagandists want us to believe.
Then in
January 1964 an armed constable on duty at Flagstaff House, shot at the
President, missed him and in the process killed Supt. Salifu Dagarti, Nkrumah’s
body guard.
The Head of the
Police E.R.T Madjitey was sacked. George Harlley, Head of The Special Branch
who had been critical of Madjitey all along was appointed to take over the
Police Administration. Harlley together with Kotoka and Afrifa organized the
coup on 24th of February 1966 that overthrew Nkrumah whilst on his
way to Hanoi to mediate in the Vietnam War.
It is worth
noting that the Military cum Police Junta called their administration the
National Liberation Council which was made up of members of the old National
Liberation Movement that had obstructed the country’s independence. There was
jubilation all over the country and the anti-Nkrumah Western Press was
ecstatic. Weird and strange articles were published about Nkrumah and the
Flagstaff House.
I am quoting
one of such articles to illustrate this point.
The TIMES of
London reported the following story on the 28th February 1966 on the
Flagstaff House.
“There are
underground passages running for miles. These are stocked with more ammunition
than that possessed by the whole Ghana Army and with food for something like
six months for the 1000 security men in and around Flagstaff House –including
unknown number of Russians and Chinese”.
I will end my
speech with the assessment of the Nkrumah regime by two individuals of
different political persuasions:
Mr. E.N.
Omaboe, a prominent Ghanaian economist and Chairman of the Economic committee
of the National Liberation Council wrote “By 1965 Nkrumah has achieved for
Ghana levels of social and welfare services which are in advance of those of
most under-developed countries and in some urban centres not far behind those
of some developed countries”
Mr. Geoffrey
Bing- Nkrumah’s first Attorney- General and later one of his key advisers.
“The legacy left Ghana by Dr. Nkrumah was
judged by any standard impressive, Ghana had achieved under his rule compulsory
and universal primary education. In its roads and harbours, its
telecommunications and its health services it was ahead of most and indeed
probably all of the less developed countries. It has thanks to him the one
prerequisite for development, abundant electric power which is produced more
cheaply than almost anywhere else in the world”
Ladies and
gentlemen, comrades WHAT WENT WRONG.
DR NASSER SPEAKS TODAY
By Ekow
Mensah
Dr Gamal Nasser Adam, a lecturer at the
Department of Modern Languages of the University of Ghana, will deliver a
lecture on “The Relevance of Nkrumah’s Economic Vision” today.
The lecture is the second of a three-day
series organised by the Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) to mark the 47th
anniversary of the overthrow of Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah.
It will be
chaired by Comrade Kwesi Pratt, Jnr. a member of the SFG and it is scheduled to
start at 5:00pm at the Freedom Centre in Accra.
The first lecture was delivered by Mr Lee
Ocran, former Minister of Education on “ The History, February 24th , Nkrumah And Ghana”.
The third
lecture will be delivered by Dr Yao Graham on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at
the Freedom Centre at 5:00pm.
Dr Graham
will speak on “24th February, Pan- Africanism And Nkrumah Today”.
Organisers say that all progressives and
Nkrumaists have been invited to participate in the event.
Ghana’s first President Osagyefo Dr Kwame
Nkrumah was overthrown on February 24, 1966 in international conspiracy led by
the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America.
The day is observed every year as “Ghana’s Day
of Shame” by the Socialist Forum of Ghana.
Those who
have been invited to attend include Diplomats, Ministers of State, Members of
Parliament, Academics and working people.
CJA
ON DEMOLITION
 |
| High Ranking official of CJA, Kwesi Pratt Jnr |
The Committee for
Joint Action (CJA) wishes to express serious concern about the spate of
demolition of dwellings and the forcible eviction of residents by local authorities,
development corporations and other public institutions throughout the country.
Our concern emanates from the fact that these demolitions and evictions are
undertaken without any consideration of the rights of the evicted persons to be
treated in a humane and respectable manner.
In the last few
weeks alone, demolition of residential dwellings have taken place in Adjei Kojo
(Tema), Takoradi, Adenta and more lately, Kumasi (by a private landowner).
About four weeks ago an ex-magistrate was forcibly evicted from her
accommodation in the continuing saga of the grabbing of state lands.
Furthermore, there have been demolitions by other state institutions.
It is
strange that in Kumasi, a private entity assisted by the police went on the
rampage and demolished market stalls without the knowledge and participation of
the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly.
Some
of the affected occupants have resided on those lands for as long as 30 years.
Although it is claimed that the evicted persons had no planning permission or did
not have rights to those lands, these government institutions virtually
acquiesced to the occupancies since they looked on while these lands were being
encroached upon. In some cases, the authorities actually legitimised the
occupation by collecting taxes for the use of those lands by the so-called
encroachers.
While
we support policies for effective urban planning, we consider it wrong to allow
people to occupy lands for several years only to demolish their properties
under inhumane conditions, sometimes involving the use of brute force leading
to death and injury.
Ghana
already suffers from a huge deficit in the provision of accommodation. Apart
from the regimes of Kwame Nkrumah and General Acheampong, no other government
of Ghana has made any attempt to build accommodation or developed policies for
the building of affordable, low-cost housing for the ordinary people of this
country. The few that were built by other governments were sold to the
occupants who have also become landlords and ladies.
The national
institutions that are currently demolishing dwellings of ordinary people are
oblivious to the feelings of marginalisation, alienation, social exclusion and
sheer trauma that their victims suffer. It is appalling that when decisions are
made by state institutions to demolish the dwellings of ordinary poor people,
there is no attempt to secure alternative accommodation for them beforehand.
They have no regard to the effects on the livelihoods, the health and the
education of the children of the victims.
It is
usually the case in Ghana, that it is only when state officials identify rich
individuals and developers to develop luxury houses for the rich that a
decision is made to evict the poor occupants. What these state institutions and
officials are doing, is effectively waging a class war against the poor, whose
only desire is to secure shelter for themselves in the wake of the state’s
refusal or reluctance to provide for them. It is despicable that instead of
providing the urban poor with improved tenure and access to land, those poor
people are treated in ways that are neither fair nor equitable. It is an
undeniable fact that in our urban areas, both the poor and affluent sections of
the society have been guilty of building settlements in unapproved areas.
However, in Accra alone, we hear of many plush houses built in water courses,
but which have been allowed to stay in spite of the severe adverse
environmental effects that they have on our cities. It is because of this that
we find as unacceptable the rush by some metropolitan and local authorities to
single out the poor and disperse them without finding suitable locations for
them to resettle.
The current spate
of demolitions is a perversion of the rights of the poor to fend for themselves
and their families. It is an indictment on state institutions for wilfully
refusing to recognise the human rights of the poor to decent livelihood.
We note with
concern, the loud silence of central government over these callous acts against
the poor by state institutions and other individuals. We also condemn the
deployment of unnecessary state violence against citizens in the course of
carrying out the demolitions.
We call on the
government to intervene to stop these wanton acts of callousness. It is not
enough to send NADMO to give blankets to evicted people left to the mercy of
the weather. We believe that those who ought to be punished are those officials
who, knowing that encroachments were taking place, sat idly by until people had
invested their hard-earned money in the dwellings.
We also call on
the government to take urgent measures to ensure that hundreds of children who
have been affected by the mass evictions have access to education, as required
under our Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(Article 17).
Kwasi Adu
Convener
February 24,
2014.
Venezuela: Anti-Chavista Mayhem Reminiscent of 2002 US-Backed Coup
 |
| Commandante Hugo Chavez |
By Council on Hemispheric Affairs
The Council
on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) views with great alarm the violence perpetrated
against the democratically elected government and civilians in Venezuela that
has resulted, as of February 12, 2014, in three confirmed deaths, 61 persons
wounded and 69 detained. The carnage and destruction in Caracas on Wednesday
comes on the heels of generally peaceful marches held on the
200th anniversary of the battle of La Victoria, a battle in which students
played a critical role in a victory against royalist forces during Venezuela’s
war of independence. While some groups of students marched in celebration of
the Day of the Student, anti-government demonstrators used the occasion to
protest episodic shortages of some basic goods, persistent crime, and to demand
the release of students who had been arrested in earlier demonstrations.
The vicious
street attack near the national headquarters of the prosecutor’s office in
Caracas came after several days of often violent anti-government protests in
the streets of Aragua, Lara, Mérida and Táchira. [1] Some of these protests
included the use of rocks, guns, and Molotov cocktails, and were largely
directed against government buildings, the public (pro-government) television
station Venezolana de Televisión, vehicles and other property, the police, and
civilians.
Among the
injured were three students of the Central University of Venezuela who were
reportedly wounded by gunfire as well as 17 Bolivarian National Police
personnel, two of whom were attacked with Molotov Cocktails. Among those
killed in Caracas were Juan Montoya, a community activist in the pro-Chavista
23rd of January barrio and Bassil Da Costa, a marketing student. A third
person was killed in the Chacao neighborhood in the Eastern part of the
Venezuelan capital.
In Venezuela,
the media war and the contest over how to portray the demonstrations and
violence is already at full throttle. Thabata Molina, reporting for the
opposition newspaper El Universal (February 13), claimed that
Montoya and one other victim were shot in the head by pro-government
“collectivists” who, Molina reports, without offering evidence, were shooting
at student marchers. [2] The term “colectivos” is being used in this context to evoke
a pejorative image of Chavistas who are associates of collectives. Molina’s
version of events has been challenged by reports by a number of eye witnesses
as well as reporters who suggest right wing extremists were taking advantage of
the day of demonstrations to wreak violence and death. [3] Also, the generally
anti-government flavor of the attacks indicates that the main culprits are more
likely extreme elements of the opposition. It stretches the bounds of
credibility to argue that the government would seek to destabilize itself when
it has come out the winner in two important elections (presidential and
municipal), has made reducing violence and crime a top priority, has recently
met with opposition mayors to find ground on which to cooperate, and seeks a
peaceful implementation of the government’s six year plan (Plan de la Patria).
RENOUNCING VIOLENCE
Venezuelans
who are now mobilizing in the barrios of Caracas have seen a similar set of
events unfold during the prelude to the coup of 2002 against the democratically
elected former President Hugo Chavez, so they are not likely to be taken in by
the opposition’s skewed version of events. On the contrary, the killings have
ignited calls from the Chavista base for strong government intervention to bring
a halt to the violence and punish both the intellectual authors and the direct
perpetrators of these crimes. [4] A number of student leaders, both pro
and anti government, have spoken out against the violence, and the more
ostensibly moderate elements of the opposition that have called for peaceful
marches have also condemned the violence. Former right wing MUD candidate for
President and current governor of Miranda, Henrique Capriles, who participated
in a pro-opposition student march, has distanced himself from the ultra-right,
declaring on twitter “”We condemn the violence. Violence will never be our
path. We are sure that the large majority reject and condemn this!” [5] While
it is uncertain whether Capriles’s statement signals a growing breach within the
opposition leadership over strategy and tactics, his statement correctly reads
the aversion to violence of the large majority of Venezuelans. There is well
founded skepticism about whether Capriles is committed to democratic procedures
and peace. The proof is in the practice.
A mounting
number of Chavistas in the government and among the popular sectors fault
ultra-right wing leader of the Voluntad Popular party, Leopoldo López, for
inciting much of the violence. The right wing figure, who played a role in the
short-lived coup against former President Hugo Chavez in 2002, has been calling
for more demonstrations and for the “exit” of Maduro from the government,
blaming government repression by the national guard for the violence. In an
interview with Reuters reporter Peter Murphy on February 11, López insisted
that his intention was to lead peaceful protests, declaring, “We are proposing
to have millions of people supporting the movement and to activate one of the
mechanisms that is within the Constitution, including (seeking) the resignation
of the president” adding that “It’s not a conspiracy, it’s not incitement to a
coup … It’s the citizens’ right to assemble in the street.” [6]
Speaker of
the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, accused armed right wing groups for
the killings, saying, “They are fascists, murderers, and then they talk about
dialogue.” [7] In an interview with TeleSUR, Foreign Minister ElÃas Jaua has
declared that, “there are fascist groups that are defending transnational
interests that seek an end to the sovereign and independent management of
the natural resources, just as they have done ever since the arrival of
Commandante (Hugo) Chavez fifteen years ago.” [8] He alleged that Leopoldo
López was the “intellectual author of the deaths and injuries in Caracas.” [9]
On February 13, El Universal reported that a warrant had been issued
by a Caracas judge for Leopoldo López’s arrest on charges that include homicide
and terrorism. [10] This press report, however, has not yet been
confirmed by the Attorney General or other judicial authority.
MADURO CALLS FOR RESTRAINT AND RESOLVE
Government
officials have been urging against retaliation and are seeking to avoid any
escalation of violence in the streets. Maduro charged that “these are trained
groups who… are prepared to overthrow the government in a violent way, and I’m
not going to allow this, so I call on Venezuela to be peaceful.” [11] He has
also promised to fully support the attorney general in the investigation and
prosecution of the perpetrators of the violence and murder. Attorney General,
Luisa Ortega DÃaz, said detainees would be presented promptly for judicial
review. [12]
The practice
of extreme elements of the opposition during the past week does indeed look
somewhat similar to the tactics used to engineer a coup in 2002. The balance of
forces, however, is not on the side of counter revolution. First, the memory of
the 2002 coup has produced an alert Chavista base that is prepared to join in a
civic military alliance to defend the bolivarian revolution from any threats
from within or without. Second, the opposition is not of one voice, with more
moderate sectors opting out of violent confrontation and seeking to shake off
the stain of golpismo. Third, the opposition strategy of turning the
municipal elections of December 8, 2013 into a plebiscite on the status of the
Maduro administration only magnified the Chavista victory at the polls and has
generally solidified Maduro’s democratic legitimacy both at home and abroad.
Fourth, Maduro has galvanized the Chavista base by launching a counter
offensive in the economic war and stepping up government support for the
communal organizations that express grass roots constituent power. While there
are indeed some divisions within Chavismo, in this moment of crisis they have
apparently closed ranks when the fate of the revolution is at stake.
THE BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION STAYS THE COURSE
The moderate
response of Maduro to what he takes to be an attempted coup, should not be
mistaken for a lack of resolve. Nor should this challenge by the extreme
right sabotage the attempts by Maduro to build national unity with the more
moderate opposition in the fight against crime. The current clash between
revolution and counter revolution reflects an underlying dialectic between two
different visions of the social and economic spheres. The Chavista counter
offensive in the economic war has seriously called into question the priority
of the claims of private property over the claims of human life and development
for all citizens. We can expect the government counter offensive, the struggle
for food sovereignty, and the building of communes to continue unabated,
despite challenges, sometimes violent, from the hard liners on the right. For
the formerly excluded and dispossessed, for those working towards building
21st century socialism, there is no turning back.
COHA Staff
Please accept this article as a free contribution from COHA,
but if re-posting, please afford authorial and institutional attribution.
Exclusive rights can be negotiated.
February 18,
2014 – Addendum: This article incorrectly defines colectivos as “a
pejorative image of Chavistas who are associates of collectives.” Colectivos
refers to militant grassroot groups “which view themselves as the defenders of
revolutionary socialism but are denounced by opponents as thugs.” ( See: Daniel
Wallis, “Venezuela violence puts focus on ‘militant’ groups,” Reuters,
February 13, 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/us-venezuela-protests-colectivos-idUSBREA1C1YW20140213 )
Destabilizing Venezuela: Washington v. Chavismo
 |
| US President Hussein Obama, can he topple Maduro |
Destabilizing
Venezuela is longstanding US policy. Chavez denounced it many times. President
Nicolas Maduro does now.
After his
April 2013 election, he accused opposition candidate Henrique Capriles of coup
plotting against him.
“Preparations
are under way for an attempt to de-recognize democratic institutions,” he said.
Dark forces
never quit. Washington prioritizes regime change. Venezuela is a prime target.
At the time,
Maduro accused US embassy officials of plotting “acts of violence.” He expelled
two Obama military attaches.
He accused
another embassy employee of plotting sabotage against Venezuela’s electrical
grid.
“I will use a
hard hand against fascism and intolerance,” he said. “I declare it. If they
want to overthrow me, come and get me.”
He asked
Venezuelans to “(d)ecide who you are with…the country and peace and the people
(or) fascism.”
Destabilization
continues. Obama wants regime change. On Sunday, Maduro addressed thousands of
supporters.
He accused
fascist elements of coup plotting. He called on Venezuelans to “combat in the
streets with ideas, with values, in high quality debate, with respect for
people’s rights, without violence.”
Roy Chaderton
is Venezuelan Organization of American States (OAS) ambassador. He sent Maduro
a report listing US demands. They include:
dialoguing
with opposition leaders;
releasing
detainees arrested during violent protests; and
threatening
that “the arrest of (fascist Popular Will party head) Mr. Leopoldo Lopez could
cause negative consequences in their international ramifications.”
Obama demands
no legal action against him. Maduro called his demands “unacceptable and
insolent…I don’t accept threats from anybody,” he said.
“They will be
hard to stop us,” he stressed. (W)e are willing to go to the end in defense of
peace and democracy.”
On Monday, he
called other Latin American presidents. He urged them to denounce US threats.
He asked Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) Secretary General Ali
Rodriguez for support.
He told
Foreign Minister Elias Jaua to declare three US embassy officials persona non
grata. He ordered them expelled.
He accused
them of involvement in destabilizing Venezuela. They weren’t identified by
name.
A Foreign
Ministry statement said Washington seeks to “promote and legitimize the
attempts to destabilize the Venezuelan democracy that have sparked violent
groups in last days.”
“…Venezuela
strongly rejects the statements of…John Kerry…”
“…Obama lies
when he…question(s) the validity of human rights and democratic guarantees in
our country.”
Bolivarian
institutions guarantee “the exercise of political rights to all its citizens,
in a framework of broad civic freedoms enshrined constitutionally.”
“The US
government is lying when it denounces the detention of (so-called) peaceful
anti-government protesters.”
“Venezuela
has acted and will continue to (confront) violent actions by small groups of
extreme (hardliners) conspiring against the liberties (and threatening) the
life of our fellow citizens…”
Both
countries have no ambassadorial relations. Last September, Maduro expelled
Washington’s charge d’affaires and two other embassy officials.
“…John
Kerry…defends violent leader Leopoldo Lopez…(S)ufficient evidence” shows his
involvement in anti-government street rioting.
“The people
and the Venezuelan government…will continue imperturbably exercising all
(legal) actions…necessary to…defeat” Washington’s anti-Bolivarian agenda.
“We call (on
all independent) governments…and peoples of the world against this serious US
intervention.”
US/Venezuelan
relations have been strained since Chavez took office in February 1999. They
remain so now.
Venezuela is
infested with US coup plotters. CIA operatives have been involved for years.
Corporate
funded right-wing think tanks want Venezuela returned to its bad old days. They
go all-out to vilify Bolivarian fairness. Lies substitute for truth.
Heritage
Foundation (HF) misinformation claims Venezuelan “economic and political
freedom is nonexistent.” Maduro is vilified for relations with China, Cuba,
Russia and Iran.
Venezuela is
a model of democratic fairness. Media freedom is the hemisphere’s best. Not
according to HF.
It lied
claiming Maduro “persecutes political adversaries and critics.”
“Restrictions
on media freedom undermine the opposition,” it added.
Doomsayers claim
Venezuela’s economy is troubled. Economist Mark Weisbrot calls pre-Chavez years
“economic(ally) disast(rous).”
From 1980 –
1998, per capital income fell. Chavez turned disaster into success. Predictions
of economic collapse deny reality.
Venezuela isn’t
Greece. Its “long awaited apocalypse” isn’t likely, said Weisbrot. Around $100
billion in oil revenue avoids balance of payments problems.
About $40
billion of reserves adds stability. Bank of America calls Venezuelan bonds a
good buy. Possible hyperinflation is remote.
Despite
challenging problems, Venezuela’s economy is far from troubled. Growth was
positive for 13 straight quarters.
Jobs are
available for most Venezuelans who want them. Chavez cut poverty from 60% to
26%. Extreme poverty decreased from over 16% to 7%.
Venezuelans
have Latin America’s highest minimum wage. According to Weisbrot, “Venezuela
has sufficient reserves and foreign exchange earnings to do whatever it wants
to do.”
Over-dependence
on oil can be overcome in time. So can other longterm structural problems.
Overcoming
Washington’s regime change agenda is most challenging. Right-wing think tanks
support it.
Harold
Trinkunas heads Brookings’ Latin America Initiative in the Foreign Policy
program.
He formerly
chaired the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate
School.
On January
23, he headlined ”Venezuela Breaks Down in
Violence.” It was a memo to Obama. It’s a thinly veiled call for regime change.
He urged US intervention.
He claimed
“economic mismanagement.” On the one hand, he said it “reached such a level
that it risks a violent popular reaction.”
Later in his
memo he called the “risk of a violent outcome low.”
“(I)t is in
the US interest that Venezuela remain a reliable source of oil,” he said.
“Popular
unrest in a country with multiple armed actors, including the military, the
militia, organized crime and pro-government gangs, is a recipe for unwelcome chaos
and risks an interruption of oil production,” he added.
He urged
Obama to enlist help from Brazil. It’s interests are at risk, he claimed. He
recommended efforts made “to convince (Maduro) to shift course.”
If crisis
conditions erupt, he wants Maduro ousted. He couched his language as follows:
Begin “quiet
conversations” with other regional countries. Plan “steps to take should
Venezuela experience a violent breakdown of political order.”
Washington
“would need to work with key states in the region – Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Peru
and Colombia – on a regional consensus in favor of rebuilding ‘democracy’ in
Venezuela.”
The kind
Trinkunas favors is none at all. He wants Obama enlisting help from regional
allies. He wants Venezuela returned to its bad old days.
“(S)hould
violence erupt,” he wants Obama “to prepare a concerted regional response that
leads to Venezuela’s re-democratization.”
In other
words, he wants regime change. He wants pro-Western puppet leadership replacing
Maduro. He favors coup d’etat.
He wants a
repeat of April 2002. He wants it working this time. Why he expects above named
countries to help, he’ll have to explain.
Fearing
Venezuela collapsing into violence doesn’t square with reality. Trouble makers
are relatively few. Chavistas way outnumber them.
Venezuelan
democracy is the world’s best. So is Bolivarian fairness. Not according to
Trinkunas. He calls the political playing field “hardly level.”
Maduro
“undermined democratic institutions” he claimed. He “centralized power in the
executive branch…”
He
“prevent(s) other branches of government, opposition parties or civil society
from influencing policy.”
“There are no
checks on the executive when it uses state resources to win elections and
selectively applies the law to intimidate opponents.”
He
“foreclosed peaceful options.” He’s “interventionist and increasingly
authoritarian.”
He “put the
armed forces on the street to enforce his economic decrees…” He fosters
“popular discontent.”
His memo
reads like straight State Department propaganda. Fiction substituted for facts.
Misinformation drowned out truth.
He supports
regime change. So does Obama. Not if Venezuelans have their say. They did
before. Expect no less this time if necessary.
His new book
is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment