Con las posiciones extremistas del gobierno de Trump, los EE.UU. está aislado en el mundo

En esta entrevista de Telesur en el marco del debate en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, planteo que los EEUU está aislado en el mundo en asuntos de gran importancia, como el conflicto entre Irán y Arabia Saudita, la política hacia Venezuela y, por supuesto, el calentamiento global.

https://videos.telesurtv.net/video/795700/entrevista-con-jorge-gestoso-795700/?fbclid=IwAR1dXNqgC3k_3gM2Cy3hj25gO_82a-y9ACiIuM3M_XYujXlTlDkkw31BQJk

Washington Increasingly Isolated in the World Today

Telesur interviewed me on the international sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, the fate of Latin America’s “Pink Tide,” and other key issues in the framework of the current discussion in the UN General Assembly. One of the key points I attempt to make is that the U.S. is largely isolated in the world, even while the countries of Europe and elsewhere kowtow to Washington. Europe, for instance, opposes the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord as well as the Iranian agreement. Furthermore, European nations, Canada and Latin American nations – unlike the U.S. - continue to recognize the Maduro government, even while they also recognize Juan Guaidó. The Trump administration’s policy – unlike the position of the Europeans - is to oppose any negotiation with the Maduro government other than the terms under which Maduro is to step down from office. In short, under Trump, Washington is waving the banner of extremism on many fronts.
https://videos.telesurtv.net/video/795700/entrevista-con-jorge-gestoso-795700/

The Divisions of the Venezuelan Opposition – Long Ignored by the Media – Have Now Come to the Fore

Today the “Latin America Advisor,” a newsletter of the centrist Washington think tank “Inter-American Dialogue” published a short piece by Steve Ellner which points out that for years the commercial media largely ignored the divisions in the Venezuelan opposition and the issues behind them. Now that an agreement has been reached between the Maduro government and opposition moderates, these divisions have come to the fore. He also points out that the opposition’s rank and file of all stripes is keenly aware that on five occasions, the opposition launched what they assured was “the final offensive” against Maduro. Now what these Venezuelans want is to concentrate on resolving pressing economic problems and not regime change:

Latin America Advisor

September 26, 2019
by Steve Ellner

The agreement reached between the Maduro government and anti-government moderates on September 16 demonstrates the degree to which the Venezuelan opposition is divided. The media for a long time ignored these internal differences, while Washington granted Juan Guaidó unconditional support, even though his Voluntad Popular party represents a relatively small and radical fringe of the opposition. The radicals have consistently opposed anything resembling “coexistence with the regime” and now (along with Washington, but not our European allies) insist that the only item up for negotiations is the terms under which Maduro will leave office. In contrast, opposition moderate Timoteo Zambrano has long supported focusing discussions on the revamping of the national electoral council and the release of political prisoners, two demands that were tentatively met on September 16. Another key negotiator on September 16, former presidential candidate Claudio Fermin, staunchly opposes the government’s statist economic policies, but criticizes Guaidó for supporting sanctions and military intervention and argues Venezuelans can resolve their conflicts without intervention by “external factors.” 

These latest developments were predictable given Guaidó’s erosion of active support, as shown by his loss of mobilization capacity, beginning with his failed general strike call in May. Many opposed to the government recall the five times the opposition has announced a “final offensive” against Maduro and, as Zambrano states, they would rather concentrate on pressing economic problems. Nevertheless, without support of non-radicals such as Acción Democrática party and two-time presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, the moderates’ chances of success are limited. But the September 16 initiative is the only hope for beginning to ease the extreme polarization that has done much damage to Venezuela since the early years of Hugo Chávez’s rule.

Steve Ellner is a retired professor of the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela and currently an Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives. His latest book is his edited Latin America’s Pink Tide: Breakthroughs and Shortcomings (2019).

The sanctions against Venezuela amount to a veritable embargo

This Code Pink video makes a good point about how the international sanctions against Venezuela encourage “overcompliance.” Foreign companies, fearful of being placed on the U.S. bad guys list and having to choose between selling to Venezuela and the U.S. market (as Bolton put it), end up shunning all commercial activity with Venezuela. That is, just to be on the safe side. Thus even private Venezuelan companies that have no dealings with the Venezuelan government find themselves without international partners

https://youtu.be/aL410bczRn0

The Democratic-controlled House hasn’t put a check on Trump’s abuse of power. Why haven’t the courts?

With the most recent Ukraine scandal, Nancy Pelosi’s strategy of holding back from impeachment procedures is not only discredited, but so is the judicial system. The Democratic Party leadership just assumed that the courts would do their job by proceeding against Trump himself rather than just his surrogates. That of course hasn’t happened in spite of all the flagrant violations of democratic and ethical norms. This failure is telling of the politicization of the courts, and in a general sense, the bankruptcy of the entire political system.

Code Pink, among other groups, are calling for a climate strike at the nation’s capital for this Monday, Sept. 23

Video by Michelle María Ellner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RQEcBaVUc

On a per-capita basis, the U.S. comes in first place among the world’s major contaminators – Only heavily subsidized public transportation will change things

ON THE EVE OF THE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PROTESTS OVER CLIMATE CHANGE, LET THE POLITICIANS CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

I am living outside of Washington DC. It’s as costly, or perhaps more costly for someone to go to work on the metro system than to drive into the city. The round trip from the Van Dorn metro station which is the closest to where I live, comes to almost $10. The metro parking lot costs nearly $5 but you have to get there before 8:00 AM, otherwise you park in an adjacent parking lot and it comes a lot more. If you take a metro bus to another station, it comes to an additional $4. If you purchase a monthly metro card, you reduce the cost just by a few bucks. 

These rates are grotesque if you consider the urgency of the problem of climate change. Drastic measures are necessary to substantially reduce contamination levels and that includes reducing the use of cars. The only way that is going to happen is to slap a hefty tax on automobile and gasoline sales and use the revenue to subsidize public transportation. Urban public transportation should cost no more than 25-50 cents. Politicians can talk all they want about their commitment to combating global warming, but without a major overhaul of the system of transportation, there will be no major breakthroughs. And the United States will continue to be the worlds largest per capita contaminator among those nations most responsible for CO2 emissions.

A critical analysis of 21st century progressive Latin American governments in “Latin America’s Pink Tide: Breakthroughs and Shortcomings”

ZNET has just posted excerpts of my introduction to the book “Latin America’s Pink Tide: Breakthroughs and Shortcomings.” One of the points I make is the criticism of Pink Tide governments for often not having taken advantage of moments in which their parties were in a position of strength in order to deepen the process of change and take harsh measures to combat corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency. An example was Maduro’s strong position vis-à-vis the opposition following the Chavista handsome victory in the municipal elections of December 2013 and then the defeat of the opposition-led “guarimba” protests of 2014. That moment stands in sharp contrast with his current situation in which his back is up against the wall. A similar propitious moment was in Brazil after Lula won the 2006 presidential elections with over 60 percent of the vote. These and other criticisms (and “self-criticisms”) need to be widely discussed and assimilated on the left.

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/excerpts-from-the-introduction-by-steve-ellner-of-latin-americas-pink-tide/

Que es el impacto a largo plazo del fenómeno de los gobiernos progresistas latinoamericanos llamado el “Pink Tide”?

La revista académica “Revista Política Latinoamericana” de la Universidad de Buenos Aires publicó una entrevista conmigo titulado “Los retrocesos de la izquierda latinoamericana post-2015: ¿Que significan?” Rechazo la tesis que esas derrotas ponen en evidencia un “fin del ciclo” en el cual los avances de los gobiernos progresistas llamados “Pink Tide” van a ser borrados y olvidados.

http://scholar.google.co.ve/scholar_url?url=http://www.politicalatinoamericana.org/revista/index.php/RPL/article/download/131/143&hl=en&sa=X&d=10765698236713102181&scisig=AAGBfm0ZE5GT6gCit2_wUqFzFXv339dCew

If the Defense Department is diverting billions for Trump’s wall, does the Pentagon really need all that it's getting?

The Pentagon is diverting 3.6 billion dollars of its budget to help build Trump’s wall. Shouldn’t people be asking the obvious?: Does the Pentagon really need all of the $686 billion it got this year for military spending? Shouldn’t the issue of military spending be in the front and center of the 2020 presidential debate? 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/pentagon-oks-military-construction-funds-build-trump-wall-190903222002335.html

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Site of John Brown’s Raid of 1859 – A Century and a Half Later

What tourists in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia get to see is all about the Civil War battle that took place in 1862, and very little about John Browns raid of 1859, a much more significant and meaningful event.

John Brown’s raid was a momentous occurrence because, unlike what US historiography long maintained, it was not a half-baked scheme but rather a well thought out plan to arm the slave population to confront their oppressors. It could have worked, particularly because the U.S. army armory in Harpers Ferry was so well supplied. It also demonstrated the bravery and determination of some northerners – not only Brown who was white, but many in the African American community in the north who sympathized with him – to oppose and fight against social injustice. The raid sent shock waves throughout the south and undoubtedly scared some members of the northern elite as well.

The audio on the bus from the parking lot to the town was all about the town’s history and the civil war; the only reference to John Brown was to call his raid a "desperate action." The walking tour guide was very knowledgeable and entertaining (an A rating on that score) but his narrative was focused on the Civil War battle which illuminated the military genius of the south’s two outstanding generals, Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson. When the guide entered the fire engine house where Brown was captured by Lee, he just mentioned Brown passingly. The most disappointing aspect was that the armory which Brown attacked was subsequently destroyed and never reconstructed.

One of the few references to John Brown’s raid cast it in a negative light. It’s in memory of a victim of the raid, an employee of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. who happened to be African American. The message: Far from helping African Americans, John Brown’s raid inflicted harm on them and here is the proof.  

One of the plaques presents both sides of the story. On the one hand, the statement by the United Daughters of the Confederacy that “the people of the South who owned slaves valued and respected their qualities” more so than did any other class. On the other hand, the statement by the famed African American historian W.E.B. Du Bois (who later joined the Communist Party) who vindicated John Brown’s actions.

This reminds me of what they taught me in grade school. That there were good slaveholders and bad ones. The implication being that slavery wasn’t that bad after all. Must we give equal time to those who perpetuate nefarious actions?