WIKILEAKS - Traducción de cable sobre el golpe en Honduras

[Traducción No-Oficial, cable Confidencial de la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Honduras sobre el Golpe de Estado contra el Presidente Manuel Zelaya]

Fecha 24-07-2009 00:23:00
Fuente Embajada Tegucigalpa
Clasificación CONFIDENCIAL
C O N F I D E N C I A L TEGUCIGALPA 000645

SIPDIS

WHA FOR A/S TOM SHANNON
L PARA HAROLD KOH Y JOAN DONOGHUE
NSC PARA DAN RESTREPO

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/23/2019
TAGS: PGOV, KDEM, KJUS, TFH01, HO

SUJETO: TFHO1: ABIERTO Y CERRADO: EL CASO DEL GOLPE HONDUREÑO

REF: TEGUCIGALPA 578

Classificado por: Embajador Hugo Llorens, razones 1.4 (b y d)

(C) Sumario: (La Embajada) ha intentado esclarecer algunos de los aspectos legales y constitucionales alrededor del retiro forzoso del Presidente Manuel "Mel" Zelaya del 28 de junio.

1. La perspectiva de la Embajada es que no hay duda que el ejercito, la Corte Suprema y el Congreso Nacional han conspirado el 28 de junio en lo que ha constituido un golpe de Estado en contra de la Rama Ejecutiva, al aceptar que puede existir un caso prima facie según el cual Zelaya puede haber cometido ilegalidades y hasta puede haber violado la constitución.

Tampoco hay duda desde nuestra perspective que la toma del poder de Roberto Micheletti fue ilegitima. Sin embargo, es también evidente que la propia constitución puede ser deficiente en términos de proveer procedimientos claros para enfrentar actos ilegales por el Presidente y resolver conflictos entre los distintos sectores del gobierno. Fin del sumario.

2. (U) Desde el retiro y la expulsión del Presidente Zelaya, el 28 de junio, por las Fuerzas Armadas hondureñas, la Embajada ha consultado expertos legales hondureños (no se puede encontrar una opinión legal profesional plenamente objetiva en el actual ambiente políticamente cargado) y ha revisado el texto de la Constitución hondureña y las leyes para desarrollar un mejor entendimiento de los argumentos debatidos por los partidarios del golpe y sus opositores.

-------------------------------
Argumentos de los partidarios del golpe
-------------------------------

3. (SBU) Los defensores del golpe del 28 de junio han ofrecido una combinación de los siguientes argumentos, a menudo ambiguos, para afirmar su legalidad:

-- Zelaya ha violado la ley (alegado pero no evidenciado);

-- Zelaya renunció (una clara fabricación);

-- Zelaya intentaba extender su mandato(suposición);
-- Si hubiese podido seguir con su sondeo de opinion del 28 de junio sobre la reforma constitucional, Zelaya hubiese disuelto el Congreso al día siguiente y constituido una asamblea constitucional (suposición);

-- Zelaya tenía que ser sacado del país para evitar un baño de sangre;

-- El Congreso "unanimamente" (o en algunas versions por un voto 123-5 vote) ha depuesto a Zelaya; (después del hecho y bajo el sello del secreto); y

-- Zelaya "automaticamente" cesó de ser presidente al momento que sugirió modificar la prohibición constitucional de reelección presidencial.

4. (C) En nuestra opinión, ninguno de los argumentos mencionados tiene una validez substantiva bajo la constitución hondureña. Algunos son claramente falsos.

Otros son meras suposiciones o racionalizaciones “ex-post” de un acto manifiestamente ilegal. En esencia: Los militares no tenían autoridad para remover a Zelaya del país;

- El Congreso no tiene autoridad constitucional para eliminar un Presidente de Honduras;

- El Congreso y el Poder Judicial destituyeron a Zelaya sobre la base de un proceso precipitado, extralegal, ad-hoc y secreto, de 48 horas;

- La supuesta carta de "renuncia" carta era una fabricación y ni siquiera fue la base para la decisión del Congreso del 28 de junio; y

- La detención de Zelaya y su retiro forzoso del país violaban múltiples garantías constitucionales, incluyendo la prohibición de la expatriación, la presunción de inocencia y el derecho al debido proceso.

-------------------------------------------
Juicio político bajo la Constitución de Honduras
-------------------------------------------

5. (U) En conformidad con la Constitución de Honduras como redactada en la actualidad, el Presidente sólo puede ser removido en el caso de muerte, renuncia o incapacidad. Sólo la Corte Suprema puede determinar que un Presidente se encuentra "incapacitado" por haber cometido un delito.

6. (U) No existe procedimiento explícito para un juicio político en la Constitución de Honduras de 1982. Originalmente, el artículo 205-15 estipulaba que el Congreso tenía competencia para determinar si existía "causa" en contra del Presidente, pero no estipulaba sobre que base o bajo qué procedimiento.
El Artículo 319-2 señalaba que el Tribunal Supremo estudiaría los casos de delitos comunes o oficiales cometidos por funcionarios de alto nivel
funcionarios, después de la determinación de una causa por el Congreso.

Esto implicaba un proceso impreciso de juicio político en dos fase con la participación de los otros dos poderes del Estado, aunque sin criterios y procedimientos específicos. Sin embargo, el artículo 205 se derogó en 2003, y la disposición correspondiente del artículo 319 (ahora 313) se modificó para estipular que sólo que la Corte Suprema escucharía "los procesos iniciados" en contra de altos funcionarios.

Por lo tanto, parece que en el marco de la Constitución tal como redactada en la actualidad, la eliminación de un presidente o un funcionario del gobierno es un asunto enteramente judicial.

7. (U) Una opinión jurídica acertada confirma que la eliminación de un presidente es un asunto judicial. De acuerdo con un libro de 2006 del respetado jurista Enrique Flores Valeriano - difunto padre del Ministro de Zelaya de la Presidencia, Enrique Flores Lanza - el Artículo 112 de la Ley de Justicia Constitucional indica que, si se determina que algún funcionario violó la Constitución, esa persona debe ser removida de su cargo inmediatamente, la Corte Suprema de Justicia quedando como la mayor autoridad en materia de constitucionalidad.

(U) Muchos expertos jurídicos también nos han confirmado que el proceso de Honduras para impugnar un Presidente o otro tipo de funcionario de alto nivel es un procedimiento judicial. Afirman que bajo la ley hondureña, el proceso consiste en cargos criminales formales presentados por el Fiscal General en contra del acusado ante la Corte Suprema. El Tribunal Supremo Tribunal puede aceptar o rechazar los cargos. Si el Tribunal de Justicia decide proceder, asignar un magistrado del Tribunal Supremo magistrado, o un grupo de magistrados, para investigar la materia y supervisar el proceso. El proceso judicial está abierto y transparente y se le daría pleno derecho de legítima defensa al acusado. Si es declarado culpable en el juicio político, los magistrados tienen la autoridad para remover al Presidente o el funcionario de alto rango. Una vez que el Presidente se retira, entonces la sucesión constitucional seguiría. En este caso, si un Presidente es acusado legalmente, condenado y removido, su sucesor es el Vice Presidente o lo que es el llamado Designado Presidencial. En la situación actual en Honduras, ya que el vicepresidente, Elvin Santos, renunció el pasado mes de diciembre con el fin de ser capaz de ser candidato presidencial del Partido Liberal, el sucesor del presidente Zelaya sería el presidente del Congreso, Roberto Micheletti.

Lamentablemente, el Presidente nunca fue juzgado, o declarado culpable, o fue removido legalmente de su cargo para permitir una sucesión legal.

-----------------------------
El caso legal contra Zelaya
-----------------------------
9. (C) Los oponentes de Zelaya alegan que violó la Constitución por numerosos motivos, algunos de los cuales parecen ser obviamente válidos, otros no:
- Negarse a presentar un presupuesto al Congreso: La Constitución es clara de que el Ejecutivo presentará un proyecto de presupuesto al Congreso el 15 de septiembre de cada año (Art. 367), que el Congreso aprobará el presupuesto (art. 366) y que no hay obligaciones o pagos que pueden ser efectuados excepto sobre la base de un presupuesto aprobado (art. 364);

- Negarse a financiar el Congreso: El artículo 212 establece que Hacienda repartirá trimestralmente los fondos necesarios para el funcionamiento del Congreso;
- La propuesta de un referéndum constitucional ilegal: La Constitución sólo podrá ser modificada mediante el voto de dos terceras partes del Congreso en dos sesiones consecutivas (art. 373 y 375); una asamblea constituyente que deberá reescribir la Constitución, como Zelaya promovió, por lo tanto es inconstitucional; sin embargo, no está claro que la propuesta de una asamblea constituyente viola la Constitución, sólo que cualquier cambio derivado de esa asamblea sería inválido;
- Desafiar la sentencia de un tribunal competente: Zelaya insistió en seguir adelante con su reforma constitucional y las encuestas de opinión después de que tanto un tribunal de primera instancia como un
tribunal de apelaciones le ordenaron la suspensión de esos esfuerzos; sin embargo, mientras manifestó la clara intención de seguir adelante con la encuesta, en realidad nunca lo hizo;
- Proponer la reforma de los artículos irreformables: puesto que la Asamblea Constituyente propuesta por Zelaya hubiera tenido poderes ilimitados para reescribir la Constitución, se violó el artículo 374, que determina que ciertos artículos son inamovibles; sin embargo, una vez más, Zelaya en realidad nunca trató de cambiar los llamados artículos "tallados en piedra", y se supone que sólo tuvo la intención de hacerlo;
- Descartar el jefe de las fuerzas armadas: la Corte Suprema Sala Constitucional falló el 25 de junio que Zelaya estaba en violación de la Constitución al despedir al Jefe de la Defensa Vásquez Velásquez; la Constitución (art. 280) establece que el Presidente puede nombrar libremente o quitar el jefe de la las fuerzas armadas, pero el tribunal dictaminó que, como Zelaya lo despidió a él por negarse a llevar a cabo una encuesta que la corte había declarada ilegal, el despido era ilegal.

10. (C) A pesar de que un caso hubiera podido ser presentado en contra de Zelaya por varias de las supuestas violaciones constitucionales anteriores, nunca hubo una valoración pública oficial de las pruebas ni nada que se parezca a un debido proceso.

-----------------------
El artículo 239 Cannard
-----------------------
11. (U) El artículo 239, que los partidarios del golpe comenzaron a citar después de los hechos para justificar la remoción de Zelaya (y que no está mencionado en ninguna parte en el voluminoso expediente judicial contra
Zelaya), establece que todo funcionario propone reformar la prohibición constitucional contra la reelección del presidente cesará inmediatamente de ejercer sus funciones y no tendra derecho a ocupar cargos públicos por 10
años. Los defensores del Golpe de Estado han afirmado que por tanto Zelaya dejó automáticamente de ser presidente cuando propuso una asamblea constituyente para reescribir la Constitución.

12. (C) El análisis (de la Embajada) indica que el el argumento del artículo 239, está viciado por múltiples motivos:
- Aunque se suponía en general que la razón de Zelaya para tratar de convocar una asamblea constituyente fue modificar la constitución para permitir la reelección, no tenemos conocimiento de que lo dijo públicamente;
- El artículo 239 no establece quién se determina si se ha violado o cómo, pero es razonable suponer que no anula otras garantías de debido proceso y la presunción de inocencia;
- El artículo 94 establece que no se impondrá sanción sin que el acusado haya sido oído y encontrado culpable ante un tribunal competente;
- Muchos otros funcionarios hondureños, incluyendo presidentes, desde el primer gobierno electo bajo la Constitución de 1982, han propuesto la reelección presidencial, y nunca se consideró que tenían que ser removidos automáticamente de sus cargos como resultado.

13. (C) Se menciona que el propio Micheletti debería ser forzado a dimitir según la lógica del argumento 239, ya que como Presidente del Congreso consideró una legislación para tener una cuarta urna ("Cuarta Urna") en
las elecciones de noviembre para solicitar la aprobación de los votantes acerca de una asamblea constituyente para reescribir la constitución. Cualquier miembro del Congreso que debatió la propuesta también debería ser
separado de oficio, y el candidato presidenciales del Partido Nacional Pepe Lobo, que hizo suya la idea, debe ser inhabilitado para ejercer cargos públicos por 10 años.

--------------------------------------------- -
Retiro forzoso por militares fue claramente ilegal
--------------------------------------------- -
14. (C) Independientemente de los méritos de Zelaya y de las presuntas violaciónes constitucionales, se desprende incluso con una lectura sumaria que su expulsión por la vía militar era ilegal, y hasta los más celosos defensores del golpe de Estado no han podido formular argumentos convincentes para salvar el abismo intelectual entre "Zelaya violó la ley" y "por lo tanto, él fue expulsado a Costa Rica por los militares sin juicio."
- Aunque los partidarios del golpe alegan que la Corte emitió una orden de detención de Zelaya por desobedecer a la orden de desistir de la encuesta de opinión, esa orden, hizo pública días más tarde, era para que sea arrestado y llevado ante el autoridad competente, y no para que sea sacado del país;
- Si el tribunal había ordenado que Zelaya sea removido del país, esta orden hubiese sido inconstitucional; el artículo 81 establece que todos los hondureños tienen derecho a permanecer en el territorio nacional, con sujeción a ciertas estrechas excepciones establecidas en el artículo 187, que puede ser invocada sólo por el Presidente de la República con el acuerdo del Consejo de Ministros, el artículo 102 establece que ningún Hondureño podrá ser expatriado;
- Las fuerzas armadas no tienen competencia para ejecutar órdenes judiciales; originalmente, el artículo 272, decía que las Fuerzas Armadas tenían la responsabilidad de "mantener la paz, el orden público y el 'dominio' de la Constitución ", pero este lenguaje fue suprimido en 1998, en virtud del texto actual, y sólo la policía está autorizada a mantener la ley y ejecutar
órdenes judiciales (art. 293);
- Recuentos del secuestro de Zelaya por los militares indican que nunca le fue presentado legalmente una orden judicial, que los soldados se abrieron paso a tiros en las cerraduras y esencialmente secuestraron al Presidente.

15. (U) Un asesor legal de clasificación de las Fuerzas Armadas, Coronel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, reconoció en una entrevista publicada en la prensa hondureña el 5 de julio que las Fuerzas Armadas habían violado la ley en la eliminación de Zelaya del país. Ese mismo día se informó de que el Ministerio público estaba investigando las acciones de las Fuerzas Armadas en la detención y deportación de Zelaya el 28 de junio y que el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia había pedido a las Fuerzas Armadas explicar las circunstancias que motivaron su exilio forzoso.

16. (C) Como se informó, el asesor jurídico de la Corte Suprema informó Poloff que al menos algunos jueces de la Corte consideran que la detención de Zelaya y su deportación por los militares han sido ilegales.

------------------------------------------
Congreso no tenía autoridad para remover a Zelaya
------------------------------------------
17. (C) Como se explicó anteriormente, la Constitución modificada en 2003 al parecer da autoridad para la eliminación de un presidente únicamente al poder judicial. El acto del Congreso del 28 de junio fue relatado en algunos medios de comunicación como la aceptación de la renuncia de Zelaya, sobre la base de una carta de renuncia falsa de fecha 25 de junio que surgió después del golpe. Sin embargo, el 28 de junio la resolución del Congreso no hace mención de la carta, ni afirma que el Congreso aceptó la renuncia de Zelaya. Se dice que el Congreso "desaprueba" de conducta de Zelaya, por lo que lo "separa" del ejercicio de la Presidencia - una autoridad constitucional que el Congreso no tiene. Por otra parte, una fuente en el liderazgo del Congreso nos dijo que el quórum no estaba presente cuando la resolución fue aprobada, lo que hace que es inválida. No hubo votación registrada, ni solicitud de "sí" o "no".

18. (C) En resumen, para que se produzca una sucesión constitucional de Zelaya a Micheletti, se requiere una de las varias condiciones: renuncia de Zelaya, o su muerte, o una incapacidad médica permanente (según lo determinado por las autoridades judiciales y autoridades médicas), o como se indicó anteriormente, su condena penal formal y su destitución del cargo. En ausencia de una cualquiera de estas condiciones y el hecho que el Congreso carecía de la autoridad legal para remover a Zelaya, las acciones del 28 de junio sólo pueden ser consideradas como un golpe de Estado por el poder legislativo, con el apoyo de la rama judicial y los militares, contra el Poder Ejecutivo. Cabe mencionar que, mientras que el la resolución adoptada en junio de 28 se refiere sólo a Zelaya, su efecto era eliminar el poder ejecutivo completo. Ambas de estas acciones excedieron claramente la autoridad del Congreso.

-------
Comentario
-------

19. (C) El análisis de la Constitución arroja luz sobre los acontecimientos del 28 de junio. El establishment hondureño se enfrentó a un dilema: casi unanimidad entre los las instituciones del Estado y la clase política que Zelaya había abusado de sus poderes en violación de la Constitución, pero con cierta ambigüedad sobre qué hacer al respecto. Ante esta falta de claridad, los militares y / o quien ordenó el golpe de Estado volvió a caer en lo que ellos conocían - la manera con la cual otros presidentes de Honduras se retiraron en el pasado: una falsa renuncia carta y un billete de ida a un país vecino. No importa los méritos del caso contra Zelaya, su expulsión por los militares fue claramente ilegal, y el ascenso de Micheletti como "presidente interino" era totalmente ilegítimo.

20. (C) Sin embargo, la misma incertidumbre constitucional que presentó la clase política ante este dilema puede proporcionar la semilla para una solución. Los defensores legales más fervorosos del golpe no han podido hacer el salto intelectual entre sus argumentos acerca de los presuntos crímenes de Zelaya y cómo esas denuncias justificarían que se lo arrastraría fuera de su cama en la noche para ponerlo en un avión hacia Costa Rica. Que la Procuraduría General de Justicia y el Tribunal Supremo cuestionen ahora la legalidad de ese paso es alentador y puede proporcionar una forma de salvar la para los dos lados opuestos en la disputa actual. Comentario Final.
LLORENS

Destination
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHTG #0645/01 2050023
ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 240023Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY TEGUCIGALPA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0237
INFO RUEHZA/WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS IMMEDIATE 0735
RHEHAAA/THE WHITE HOUSE WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEIDN/DNI WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUMIAAA/USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL IMMEDIATE

WIKILEAKS - CABLE DEL DEPTO DE ESTADO SOBRE BRASIL Y RELACIONES CON EEUU

S E C R E T O BRASILIA 001207

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: Dec: 05/05/2015
TAGS: PINR PREL BR Relaciones bilaterales con los EE.UU.

ASUNTO: BRASIL: Almuerzo del Embajador con el general Jorge Armando Félix, Ministro de Seguridad Institucional

Clasificado por el Embajador John J. Danilovich por razones de 1.4 (B), (C) y (D).

1. (S) El embajador ofreció el General Jorge Armando Félix, Ministro de Seguridad Institucional, un almuerzo en la residencia el 4 de mayo de 2005. Mientras que el General Félix tiene una influencia mucho menor que su predecesor en el gobierno anterior, sigue siendo el más alto funcionario de inteligencia en el país y el equivalente aproximado de asesor de seguridad nacional de la Presidencia en Estados Unidos. Además de su propio personal en el Ministerio de Seguridad Institucional (GSI), que contiene representantes de la seguridad del Gobierno de Brasil y diversos organismos de las relaciones exteriores, el general Félix también es responsable de la supervisión de la Agencia Nacional de Inteligencia de Brasil (Abin).

2 (S) La región de la Triple Frontera:
El Embajador pidió al General Félix hacer una evaluación de la situación de la delincuencia transnacional en la región de la triple frontera entre Brasil, Argentina y Paraguay. El General Félix admitió que había problemas graves en la región y que el movimiento ilegal de armas, dinero y drogas en la región era motivo de preocupación para el Gobierno del Brasil. Félix dijo que tanto Abin y la Policía Federal de Brasil (DPF) estaban dedicando personal y recursos adicionales para el problema, y señaló que Abin incluso había realizado algunos programas conjuntos con RMAS que se han centrado en estos asuntos.

3 (S) Contra el Terrorismo:
Esto condujo a un debate sobre cuestiones de terrorismo, y operaciones en la región de la triple frontera y en todo Brasil. El General Félix dijo que Abin ha trabajado en estrecha colaboración con RMAS para monitorear a personas de interés, y el Embajador expresó su agradecimiento por esta ayuda. El General Félix dijo que además de las operaciones conjuntas que estábamos trabajando juntos, el gobierno brasileño también hizo un llamamiento a los árabes moderados de segunda generación, muchos de los cuales eran hombres de negocios exitosos en Brasil, para mantener una estrecha vigilancia sobre hermanos árabes que podrían estar influenciados por los extremistas árabes y / o grupos terroristas. El General Félix dijo que estaba en el interés de estos árabes moderados para mantener estos potenciales extremistas en línea y mantener el microscopio fuera de la comunidad árabe en Brasil. El General Félix dijo que el recientemente asesinado del ex primer ministro de Líbano, envió el mismo mensaje a la comunidad árabe en Brasil, durante una visita hace unos años. El General Félix dijo que era importante que las operaciones de lucha contra el terrorismo fueron empaquetados adecuadamente para que no se reflejan negativamente en la comunidad árabe en Brasil.

4 (S) Venezuela:
Tras el debate del terrorismo, el Embajador planteó el tema de Venezuela y su presidente Hugo Chávez y señaló que Chávez podría interrumpir los esfuerzos de Brasil para jugar un papel de liderazgo político y económico en América del Sur. El General Félix bajó la cabeza y pareció estar mediando su respuesta. Luego dijo que tenía sus propias opiniones personales acerca de Chávez (que no compartió), que eran diferentes de los del Gobierno del Brasil. Dicho esto, el General Félix dijo que prefería mantener en línea con la posición oficial (aunque no dio más detalles sobre el mismo). Félix señaló que si uno estaba a favor o en contra de Chávez, se había convertido en una parte muy importante de la realidad de "América Latina".

5 (S) La asistencia adicional:
El Embajador pidió al General Félix si había zonas donde el gobierno de Estados Unidos debería ayudar más al GSI y / o Abin. Félix dijo que estaba muy contento con la asistencia que se presta actualmente el gobierno de Estados Unidos. Una zona en la que afirmó que el Gobierno del Brasil se fue quedando atrás era la protección de sus propios sistemas informáticos clasificadas. Félix dijo que le gustaría recibir cualquier tipo de asistencia (cursos, visitas, etc) en este ámbito. Félix también dijo que estaba tratando de reforzar la capacidad de inteligencia de señales del GSI y la Abin y siempre podría utilizar un poco de ayuda en ese sentido.

6 (S) Comentario Embajada:
General Félix es una persona amable, de baja intensidad. No parece demasiado ambicioso y admitió que prefería viajar por el bien de placer en lugar de negocios. Él no es alguien que va a hacer olas, y esto probablemente contribuyó a su caminar con cuidado a través de la discusión Venezuela. Lo anterior dicho, el General Félix siempre ha sido un interlocutor directo, y su mandato en el GSI se ha destacado por ser muy cooperativo con las operaciones conjuntas entre el TC y RMAS Abin. Con todo, su presencia contínua en el GSI es un buen augurio para los intereses de EE.UU.

Danilovich 06/05/2005

WIKILEAKS- Cable de la Secretaria Hillary Clinton sobre la Presidente Cristina Fernandez de Argentina

[Traducción no oficial de cable de la Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton a la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Buenos Aires sobre la Presidente Cristina Fernandez]

VZCZCXYZ0010
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC # 2349 3651459
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
R 311455Z 09 de diciembre
FM Secretario de Estado WASHDC
A BUENOS AIRES EMBAJADAEEUU 0374
Jueves, 31 de diciembre 2009, 14:55
C E S T E R ESTADO 132349
NOFORN
SIPDIS
EO 12958 Dec: 12/31/2034
PINR ETIQUETAS, PGOV, AR
ASUNTO: (Confidencial/No Extranjeros) ARGENTINA: Kirchner INTERPERSONALES
DINÁMICA (C-AL9-02612)
Clasificado por: Elissa PITTERLE G., DIRECTOR, INR / OPS. MOTIVO: 1.4 (C).

1. (Secreto/No Extranjeros) ANALISTAS EN WASHINGTON ESTÁN INTERESADO EN LA DINÁMICA DE LIDERAZGO EN ARGENTINA, EN PARTICULAR CON RESPECTO A CRISTINA FERNÁNDEZ DE KIRCHNER Y NESTOR KIRCHNER. Tomando de un informe anterior, y basándose en nuestras evaluaciones analíticas, estamos preparando un producto escrito para analizar la dinámica interpersonal dentro del gobierno. Tenemos una comprensión mucho más sólida del estilo de Néstor Kirchner y su personalidad que a su esposa Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, y nos gustaría desarrollar una visión más profunda sobre la personalidad de CRISTINA FERNANDEZ DE KIRCHNER. Como permite el tiempo y los recursos de la Embajada, y su acceso a esta tipa de información, daríamos la bienvenida a cualquier idea sobre las siguientes preguntas. Muchas gracias y saludos de WASHINGTON.

A. (U) ESTADO MENTAL Y LA SALUD:
1) (S / NF) ¿Cómo maneja Cristina Fernández de Kirchner sus nervios y su ansiedad? ¿Cómo afecta su estrés a su comportamiento hacia sus asesors y su toma de decisiones?¿Qué medidas toma CRISTINA FERNÁNDEZ DE KIRCHNER o sus asesores para ayudar con su nivel de estrés?¿Está tomando ALGÚN MEDICAMENTO? Bajo cuales circunstancias puede ella mejor manejar su estrés? ¿Cómo afectan las emociones de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, en SU TOMA DE DECISIONES? y ¿Cómo se calma cuando se encuentra estresada?
2) (S/NF) ¿CUÁL ES LA SITUACIÓN DE LA ENFERMEDAD GASTROINTESTINAL de Néstor Kirchner? ¿Le sigue molestando? ¿Está tomando ALGÚN MEDICAMENTO? Bien conocido por su temperamento controlado, Néstor Kirchner ha exhibido una mayor tendencia a alternar entre extremos emocionales? ¿Cuáles son las cosas más comunes que provocan la ira de Néstor Kirchner?

B. (U) PUNTOS DE VISTA POLÍTICO:
1) (S/NF) Cuando se trata de problemas,¿Cristina Fernández de Kirchner adopta una visión estratégica, o prefiere tener una visión táctica? ¿Ella ve las circunstancias en blanco y negro o en términos matizados? ¿Ella se comparte la visión adversarial de Nestor Kirchner sobre la política o ella intenta moderar su estilo político de mano dura?

C. (U) EN EL TRABAJO:
1) (S / NF) ¿Cómo Cristina Fernández de Kirchner y Néstor Kirchner dividen sus días? ¿Sobre cuales asuntos toma iniciativa Cristina Fernández de Kirchner y cuales deja para Nestor Kirchner?

2. (U) POR FAVOR, CITE-C-02612 COMO REFERENCIA DE ESTA INFORMACIÓN EN RESPUESTA A LAS PREGUNTAS ANTERIORES.

CLINTON

Venezuela: Firm Rejection of US Aggression

On Tuesday, President Hugo Chavez presided over a state event in the presence of all branches of government and regional representatives, to express the nation's rejection of threats and attempts to undermine Venezuela's democracy

"The people of Venezuela, the people of ALBA nations, the people of our America and the world will defeat the pretensions of US imperialism that seek to escape its own crisis by provoking more war and violations against the people of the world", stated an "Anti-Imperialist Manifesto" signed by all heads of the five branches of government during a special event held in the historic and prestigious Elliptical Room of Venezuela's National Assembly on Tuesday.

The state event "in defense of the sovereignty of the nation and against hegemony and imperialism" was convened by President Chavez in reaction to an event held last week in the US Congress titled "Danger in the Andes: Threats to Democracy, Human Rights and Inter-American Security", during which several US congressmembers called for harsh, direct action to be taken against Chavez and other presidents from member nations of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA). Also present at last week's anti-ALBA event in the US Capitol were several fugitives from Venezuelan justice, such as Globovision president Guillermo Zuloaga, and coup leaders from Bolivia and Ecuador, including Ecuadorean Lucio Gutierrez, charged with leading efforts to overthrow President Rafael Correa last September.

The congressional event was interpreted by many throughout the region as a sign that a now republican-dominated Congress will increase hostility towards countries in Latin America such as Venezuela and Bolivia, which already have tense and difficult relations with Washington. At the conference, US congressman Connie Mack (republican from Florida), declared, "now that republicans are a majority...we should confront Hugo Chavez directly", insinuating that the House Sub-Comittee on Foreign Relations for the Western Hemisphere, to be headed by Mack, will initiate actions against Venezuela in 2011.

The new Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Miami, also indicated efforts would be undertaken to increase aggression against President Chavez, stating, “We should work closer with regional allies to confront the danger against democracy in Venezuela”.

Ros-Lehtinen, well known for her close relations with anti-Castro Cuban terrorists Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, both responsible for the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 that killed all 73 passengers aboard, as well as a series of other terrorist acts in the region, later referred to Chavez as a "repressive leader" and reiterated her calls to work for his "removal from power". In 2006, the Florida congresswoman declared during a television interview that she would encourage and "welcome anyone who assassinates Fidel Castro or any other repressive leader".

Such language was perceived by Venezuela and other Latin American nations as a clear and direct threat.

On Monday, Bolivian President Evo Morales directly charged congressman Connie Mack with the responsibility "should anything happen to President Hugo Chavez". Morales' comments were made during the inauguration of this week's meeting of defense ministers from the Americas, during which US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, was present.

"This congressmember, Connie Mack, made statements that could be interpreted as a call to assassinate President Chavez", said Morales. "Should anything happen to Chavez, Connie Mack will be one of the people responsible".

AGAINST HEGEMONY AND IMPERIALISM

At Tuesday's historic event in Venezuela, keynote speaker Eva Golinger, a Venezuelan-American attorney, investigator and writer, who has spent years researching and denouncing US intervention in Venezuela and other Latin American nations, outlined a pattern of tactics and strategies being employed against the Chavez administration. "At the beginning of 2010, the US Director of National Intelligence, who coordinates all 16 agencies of the US intelligence community, classified President Chavez as 'Anti-US Leader in the region'. Saying 'anti-US' is the same as saying 'enemy'...This is language of war".

Golinger also highlighted how during the "past five years, the US government and mass media have conducted a severe media campaign attempting to demonize President Chavez and his government". This effort, said Golinger, "tries to justify the escalation in hostility and aggression against Venezuela, as well as provide reasons for an ever-increasing amount of funding US agencies provide to Venezuelan opposition groups".

Eva Golinger also proposed the Venezuelan government enact a law to "regulate, control or prohibit foreign funding for political activities" in the South American nation. Many countries have similar laws. United States law prohibits all foreign funding from any entity, private or state, to political parties or campaigns in the US, while the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) controls any person, organization or entity receiving foreign funding for lobbying, public relations or activities "directed by or in the interests of a foreign actor".

During his speech at the sovereignty event, President Chavez heard Golinger's request for a foreign funding law loud and clear. "I implore the National Assembly to urgently pass a law to end US and foreign funding of NGOs and political parties in our country", he exclaimed, adding, "This must end. We can no longer be a docile Revolution, we must radicalize our position". Chavez also called on the other branches of government present to act against threats and violations of Venezuela's laws and sovereignty.

The presidents - all women - of Venezuela's Supreme Court, National Assembly, Electoral Power and Citizens Power affirmed their commitment to defending the nation against any external or internal threat, and signed the "Anti-Imperialist Manifesto" at the conclusion of Tuesday's event.

"In this bicentennial period, we ratify our unwavering commitment to the culmination of our Independence through the consolidation of our sovereignty and the construction of unity amongst our peoples, and we proclaim that our response to the imperialist threat will be: more unity, more independence and more integration", read the Manifesto ratified by Venezuela's state powers this week.

The Manifesto will be signed by supporters throughout the country during special events to be held during the following days in defense of Venezuela's sovereignty.

T/ Correo del Orinoco International

US Congress to Increase Aggression Against Venezuela, ALBA Countries

BY EVA GOLINGER

Members of the extreme Latin American rightwing, many of who have participated in coups d’etat and acts of destabilization and terrorism, held a meeting last Wednesday in Washington with high-level representatives of the US Congress. The event is evidence of an escalation in US aggression toward the region

The new conference room in the US Congressional Visitors Center hosted a meeting titled “Danger in the Andes: Threats to Democracy, Human Rights, and Inter-American Security”, last Wednesday, November 17.

The subjects discussed during this spectacle hosted by the US Congress evidence an escalation in aggression against countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua - all members of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) - and included “debates” centered around three primary questions:

• Are democracy and human rights in danger under the “21st Century Socialism” of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia?

• Does the ALBA Alliance of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua constitute a threat to US interests and inter-American security?

• Is current US policy toward the region equipped to respond to the erosion of democracy and the pernicious influence of such hostile actors as Iran, foreign and domestic terrorist groups, and narcotics traffickers?

The event was sponsored by the US Congress and counted on the participation of those who head the House Foreign Affairs Committees, including Elliot Engel, New York democrat, and current chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere; Connie Mack, Florida republican and incoming chairman of the same committee; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida republican and soon to be chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Ron Klein, Florida democrat and member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

The presence of democrats as well as republicans at this event opposing ALBA nations is clear evidence that Washington’s aggressive policies towards Latin America are bipartisan and official state policy of the United States government.

Members of the Latin American extreme rightwing participated in Wednesday’s event, alongside these congressional representatives, as “experts” on what they consider to be a “threat” to their regional influence and power.

From Venezuela, Guillermo Zuloaga, president of Venezuela’s Fox News affiliate, Globovision, a rabid anti-Chavez television station, gave a speech calling on Washington to respond to the “threat” posed against US interests by the government of Hugo Chavez. Zuloaga fled justice earlier this year after he was indicted by a Venezuelan court for money laundering, fraud and illegal speculation of consumer goods. He has since requested refuge in the US and has stated he will not return to Venezuela to face the charges against him.

From Bolivia, members of the separatist terrorist groups in Santa Cruz, such as Luis Nuñez, the president of the Santa Cruz Civic Committee and Javier El-Hage, representing the nefarious Human Rights Foundation, Bolivia Chapter, participated in the event, calling for a more strident policy against the government of Evo Morales. Despite its noble name, The Human Rights Foundation is an organization created by a Venezuelan anti-Chavez activist, Thor Halvorssen, which is dedicated to attacking the government of Hugo Chávez and has called for US military intervention in Venezuela.

Alejandro Aguirre, president of the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA), an entity run by media owners from Latin America, also participated in the event, reinforcing ties between mass media and right-wing politics in the region. Other notable participants included former USAID director for Latin America, Jose Cardenas; ex-US Drug Czar, John Walters; Joel Hirst from the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, a “shadow” government in Washington; Otto Reich, former US Ambassador to Venezuela (who freed terrorist Orlando Bosch from a Venezuelan prison cell in 1989) and ex-Sub-Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs during the 2002 coup d’etat in Venezuela; and Roger Noriega, also a former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under the George W. Bush government and a former US Ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS).

All of these people have a history of hostility and aggression against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and have promoted, supported and financed coups d’etats in Venezuela, Bolivia, Honduras and Ecuador over the past decade, as well as perpetual attempts to undermine peace and stability in Cuba.

Representatives from neocon parties and organizations in Ecuador were also present, such as rightwing attorney Edgar Teran, and congressional representative Enrique Herreria. Former president and coup leader Lucio Guitierrez, implicated in last month’s attempt to overthrow and assassinate Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, was a star guest at Wednesday’s political gala. Guitierrez also called on US officials to take a firmer stance against the “threat of socialism of the XXI century in Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela”.

Additional sponsors of this hostile event included FUNDAPREFC, a Venezuelan organization based in Miami, created by a self-exiled Venezuelan lawyer, Yuri Lopez Perez, who defends the Caracas police commissioners sentenced for multiple homicides that occurred during the April 2002 coup d’etat in Venezuela.

Several conservative think tanks from Washington and Miami also were present at the gathering.

The InterAmerican Institute for Democracy, founded in Miami by Argentine Guillermo Lousteau Heguy, whose board members include the Cuban terrorists Carlos Alberto Montaner and Armando Valladares, was another sponsor. Curiously, this Institute held an event titled “Breakfast with Lucio Guitierrez” on September 23, 2010, just one week before the attempted coup d’etat against President Rafael Correa in Ecuador that was led by Guitierrez himself.

Other hosts included US organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Center for Security Policy and the Hudson Institute; four right-wing “think tanks” which have dedicated themselves to attacking Venezuela during most recent years, publishing “reports” on the alleged “threats” from the Hugo Chevez government, and channeling millions of dollars to destabilizing sectors within the Venezuelan opposition.


At the conclusion of Wednesday’s meeting, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen declared that Washington “should work closer with regional allies to confront the danger against democracy in Venezuela” and other countries, such as Boliva and Ecuador. Representative Connie Mack went further in his call to action, remarking, “Now that republicans have a majority in Congress…we should confront Hugo Chavez directly”.

This event is proof that following the US legislative elections of November 2, during which reactionary republicans obtained a resounding congressional majority, Washington’s policies toward Latin America will be far more aggressive and dangerous in the months to come.

(with translation by Machatera)

Washington increases Clandestine Ops against Venezuela

By Eva Golinger

Millions of dollars are being channeled to opposition groups in Venezuela via USAID, while the Pentagon has established a new PSYOP program directed at Venezuela, including a “5-day a week television program in Spanish broadcast in Venezuela” during 2011

The 2010 annual report of the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), a division of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), regarding its operations in Venezuela, evidences that at least $9.29 million USD was invested this year in efforts to “support US foreign policy objectives…and promote democracy” in the South American nation. This amount represents an increase of almost $2 million over last year’s $7.45 million distributed through this office to fund anti-Chávez political activities in the country.

The OTI is a department of USAID dedicated to “supporting US foreign policy objectives by helping local partners advance democracy in priority countries in crisis. OTI works on the ground to provide, fast, flexible short-term assistance targeted at key political transition and stabilization needs”.

Although OTI is traditionally used as a “short-term” strategy to filter millions of dollars in liquid funds to political groups and activities that promote US agenda in strategically important nations, the case of Venezuela has been different. OTI opened its office in 2002, right after the failed coup d’etat against President Hugo Chavez - backed by Washington - and has remained ever since. The OTI in Venezuela is the longest standing office of this type in USAID’s history.

OTI’S CLANDESTINE OPS

In a confidencial memo dated January 22, 2002, Russell Porter, head of OTI, revealed how and why USAID set up shop in Venezuela. “OTI was asked to consider a program in Venezuela by the State Department’s Office of Andean Affairs on January 4…OTI was asked if it could offer programs and assistance in order to strengthen the democratic elements that are under increasing fire from the Chavez government”.

Porter visited Venezuela on January 18, 2002 and then commented, “For democracy to have any chance of being preserved, immediate support is needed for independent media and the civil society sector…One of the large weaknesses in Venezuela is the lack of a vibrant civil society…The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has a $900,000 program in Venezuela that works with NDI, IRI and the Solidarity Center to strengthen political parties and the Unions…This program is useful, but not nearly sufficient. It is not flexible enough, nor does it work with enough new or non-traditional groups. It also lacks a media component”.

Since then OTI has been present in Venezuela, channeling millions of dollars each year to feed the political conflict in the country. According to the 2010 annual report, OTI is now operating “out of the US Embassy and is part of a larger US diplomatic effort to promote democracy in Venezuela”.

The principal investment of the $9.29 million in US taxpayer dollars in 2010 went to the opposition’s campaign for the legislative elections, held last September 26 in Venezuela. “USAID works with several implementing partners drawn from the spectrum of civil society…offering technical assistance to political parties…and supporting efforts to strengthen civil society”.
In Venezuela, it’s widely known that the term “civil society” refers to the anti-Chavez opposition.

A SECRET FLOW OF FUNDS

Despite revealing its overall budget, the actual flow of funds from USAID/OTI to groups in Venezuela remains secret. When OTI opened its offices in 2002, it contracted a private US company, Development Alternatives Inc (DAI), one of the State Department’s largest contractors worldwide. DAI ran an office out of El Rosal - the Wall Street of Caracas - distributing millions of dollars annually in “small grants of no more than $100,000” to hundreds of mainly unknown Venezuelan “organizations”.
From 2002 to 2010, more than 600 of these “small grants” were channeled out of DAI’s office to anti-Chavez groups, journalists and private, opposition media campaigns.

In December 2009, DAI began to have severe problems with its operations in Afghanistan, when five of its employees were killed by alleged Taliban militants during an attack on their office December 15 in Gardez. Just days earlier, another DAI “employee”, Alan Gross, had been detained in Cuba and accused of subversion for illegally distributing advanced satellite equipment to dissidents.

When an article written by this author titled “CIA Agents assassinated in Afghanistan worked for "contractor" active in Venezuela, Cuba”, published December 30, 2009 on the web, evidenced the link between DAI’s operations in Afghanistan, Cuba and Venezuela, and their suspicious nature, the CEO of DAI, Jim Boomgard, was alarmed. Days later, he attempted to coerce me into a private meeting in Washington to “discuss” my article. When I refused, he threatened me by claiming that my writing was “placing all DAI employees worldwide in danger”. In other words, if anything happened to DAI employees, I would be personalIy responsible.
But Boomgard, who claimed little knowledge of his company’s operations in Venezuela, understood that what DAI was doing in Venezuela was nowhere near as important (to his company) as what DAI was doing in Afghanistan and other countries in conflict. Weeks later, DAI abruptly closed its office in Caracas.

Nonetheless, OTI continues its operations in Venezuela, and although it has other US “partners” managing a portion of its annual multimillion-dollar budget, such as IRI, NDI, Freedom House and the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF), there is zero transparency regarding funding to Venezuelan groups.

A report published in May 2010 by the Spanish think tank FRIDE assessing “democracy assistance” to Venezuela revealed that a significant part of the more than $50 million annually in political funding from international agencies to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela was entering illicitly. According to the report, in order to avoid Venezuela’s strict “currency control laws”, US and European agencies bring the monies in dollars or euros into the country and then change them on the black market to increase value. This method also avoids leaving a financial record or trace of the funds coming in to illegally finance political activities.

If DAI is no longer operating in Venezuela and distributing “small grants” to Venezuelan groups, then how are USAID’s multimillion-dollar funds reaching their recipients? According to USAID, they now operate from the US Embassy. Is the US Embassy illegally dishing out funds directly to Venezuelans?

OTI’s 2010 report also reveals the agency’s ongoing intentions to continue supporting and funding Venezuelan counterparts. In the section marked “Upcoming Events”, OTI makes clear where energies will be directed, “December 2012 - Presidential elections”.

PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS

USAID isn’t the only US agency intervening in Venezuela’s affairs. In the Pentagon’s 2011 budget, a new request for a “psychological operations program” for the Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM), which coordinates all US military missions in Latin America, is included. Specifically, the request refers to the establishment of a “PSYOP voice program for USSOUTHCOM”.

PYSOP are, “planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups and individuals. The execution of PSYOP includes conducting research on various foreign audiences; developing, producing and disseminating products to influence these audiences; and conducting evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the PSYOP activities. These activities may include the management of various websites and monitoring print and electronic media”. Or, as the 2011 request indicates, running a radio or audio program into a foreign nation to promote US agenda.

USSOUTHCOM’s new PSYOP program in Latin America will complement a new State Department initiative run out of the Board of Broadcasting Governors (BBG), which manages US propaganda worldwide. BBG’s whopping 2011 budget of $768.8 million includes “a 30-minute, five-day-a-week VOA [Voice of America] Spanish television program for Venezuela”.

This increase in PSYOP and pro-US propaganda directed at Venezuela evidences an escalation in US aggression towards the region.

And the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is still running a special intelligence “mission” on Venezuela and Cuba, set up in 2006. Only four of these country-specific “mission management teams” exist: Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan/Pakistan, and Venezuela/Cuba. These “missions” receive an important part of DNI’s $80 billion annual budget and operate in complete secrecy.

Venezuela: From “Backyard” to Multipolar World

A successful tour of 7 countries in three continents made by President Hugo Chavez has produced 69 new agreements that will strengthen national development and consolidate the most powerful defense against imperial aggression: the union of nations and peoples.

The most influential ideologue of the twentieth century in the United States, Henry Kissinger, declared during the 1970s regarding the expansion of socialism in the region, “If the US can’t control Latin America, how can it dominate the world?” Today, Kissinger’s concern has returned to torment the US and imperial forces, but this time, their conspiring fist can’t seem to silence the awakening of nations in Revolution.

The US desperation during those years to subordinate countries in its “backyard” led to a series of coup d’etats, brutal dictatorships, sabotages, political assassinations, mass torture and disappearances, and the implementation of neoliberal, capitalist models that caused the worst misery, exclusion, poverty and alienation known in the region throughout history.

Under the limited US vision, strategies and tactics of aggression achieved their goal by the end of the century, and in almost all Latin American nations, with the exception of Revolutionary Cuba, subservient governments were put in place, hailing the US-imposed economic and political model of neoliberal representative democracy.

When a revolutionary Venezuelan soldier, Hugo Chavez, led a rebellion against the criminal, murderous and corrupt government of Carlos Andres Perez - a close ally of Washington - on February 4, 1992, the US underestimated him. A secret document from the Department of State, now declassified, commented on the event, stating “The coup attempt appears to have been the work of a group of mid level army officers…There is no indication of popular support for the coup plotters…”

At the same time, the US government recognized from its own surveys conducted in secret in Venezuela, “The incentive to follow support for Carlos Andres Perez is small; a recent poll showed him enjoying less than 20% of the electorate’s support…” In other words, the people did not support the neoliberal model imposed on their nation.

Another secret report from March 10, 1992 revealed Washington’s true concern regarding the popular uprisings in Venezuela, “A successful coup in Venezuela would be a serious blow to US interests in the hemisphere. Despite the short term negative impact on the poor and the middle class, we believe Carlos Andres Perez’s (CAP) economic policies are exactly what are needed to reform the Venezuelan economy…CAP’s overthrow would send a chilling message to the region about the viability of implementing economic reform.” [*Although the US classified the action as a “coup”, Hugo Chavez called it a “popular rebellion against a dictatorship disguised as democracy”].

Paraphrasing Kissinger, if the US couldn’t control Venezuela, how could it control the region? The principal US concern was not whether poverty would increase and the middle class would disappear, but rather whether the neoliberal model would be implemented, at any cost, because this would be the only guarantee of permanent US domination in the region.

When Hugo Chavez won office in Venezuela in 1998, Washington didn’t know what to do. The official policy was “wait and see” before acting. Imperial interests tried to “buy” the recently elected Venezuelan President several times, but their temptations didn’t bear fruit: Venezuela had chosen an irreversible path towards independence, sovereignty, dignity and revolution.

With the first changes - constitutional reform, a raise in oil prices and the rescue of OPEC - powerful interests were affected and US control over Venezuela decreased. The voice of Hugo Chavez began to be heard throughout the region, resonating with a rebellious song that inspired restless people’s movements.

PERMANENT AGGRESSION

Soon after, actions were initiated to try and neutralize what Washington had believed impossible: an anti-imperialist, socialist revolution in the XXI century, just south of the border.

A wave of aggressions struck Venezuela - the coup in April 2002, an oil strike and economic sabotage, assassination attempts, subversion, multimillion-dollar funding to opposition groups, elections meddling and a brutal psychological war executed through mass media - but they didn’t achieve their objective and revolutionary forces began to rise throughout the continent.

The birth of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americans (ALBA) in 2004 opened the path towards a new foreign policy based on cooperation, integration and solidarity. Relations between sister nations in the region began to grow, strengthening the ties between states that shared a collective vision for humanity, and building a new economic model of commerce and trade that promoted mutual benefits and development.

ALBA TO A MULTIPOLAR WORLD

From ALBA, the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) was born with the objective of forging regional trade and creating a continental bloc of power capable of confronting world challenges.

As the Revolution in Venezuela grew, US aggression increased. In 2005, Washington launched an international campaign to “isolate the Venezuelan government” and classify it as a “rogue state”. “Hugo Chavez is a negative force in the region”, declared Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in January 2005, beginning the bombardment of lies about Venezuela before world opinion that hasn’t ceased to date.

One year later, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld compared President Chavez to Hitler, and together with the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, they denominated Venezuela the “largest threat to US interests in the region”. That year Venezuela was placed on a list of nations “not fully collaborating with the war on terror” and a US-imposed sanction prohibited the sale of defense equipment with US technology to the South American nation.

Chavez, recognizing the attempt to debilitate his armed forces, sought out other partners who weren’t subjected to US domination. Russia was the first country to offer to replace Venezuela’s military supplies.

For the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union, a Latin American nation began to build ties with Russia, without US involvement. The initial purchase of defense equipment opened the door to a new commercial and strategic relationship between Venezuela and Russia, thanks to the US embargo.

After Russia, Venezuela began to build relations with China, Belarus, Iran, Japan, Syria, Libya, India and other African, Asian and European nations. Chavez’s foreign policy initiated a radical transformation in the region and put Venezuela on the world map. “It was about radically changing the rules of the game: we wanted to relate to the world and not just one part of it. In reality, we were just learning how to walk with our own feet on the international stage. Don’t forget that before, we didn’t have our own foreign policy. Our foreign policy was directed by Washington”, explains President Chavez.

CHANGING THE BALANCE OF POWER

Chavez’s tour to Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Iran, Syria, Libya and Portugal, from October 13-24, 2010, is a sign of a new multipolar world on the horizon. Of the 69 agreements signed with these nations, Venezuela will have numerous valuable benefits, including the construction of tens of thousands of homes for Venezuelan people, agricultural development, economic growth, energy production, new industries, diverse exports and strategic, balanced relations with other nations - all for the maximum benefit of the people of Venezuela.

Not one of the 69 agreements contains exploitative elements that could cause disadvantage for Venezuela. The foreign policy of the Chavez government doesn’t permit exploitation or capitalist contamination that could harm the South American nation.

For example, in Belarus, Venezuela won’t just buy heavy cargo mining trucks and public transport vehicles, but also will create joint ventures with Belarussian companies to establish factories in Venezuelan territory, assuring technological transfer which will aid in the diversification of Venezuela’s industries and the creation of jobs for the Venezuelan people.

IN A MULTIPOLAR WORLD, THERE CAN BE NO EMPIRE

“Venezuela must objey”, declared President Obama in reference to the agreement with Russia to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use. “We are monitoring the agreements between Venezuela and Iran to see if they violate the sanctions”, announced Philip Crowley, State Department spokesman, as though Washington was still the world police.

The desperate tone eminating from the White House is the product of its weakening global power - the Empire’s time is up and a new multipolar world has been born. Kissinger’s nightmare has come true - the US can’t dominate Latin America anymore, and much less the world. The revolutionary Venezuelan soldier they once underestimated has become a symbol of resistance against US hegemony, and is inspiring millions who seek a better world.

T/ Eva Golinger

EVIDENCE OF NED FUNDING/AID TO GROUPS IN ECUADOR INVOLVED IN COUP AGAINST CORREA

THIS DOCUMENT FROM AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE (NDI) AND THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY (NED) CLEARLY EVIDENCES HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR MEDDLING IN ECUADOR'S POLITICS AND INFILTRATION OR RECRUITMENT OF ELEMENTS WITHIN PROGRESSIVE AND INDIGENOUS POLITICAL MOVEMENTS, SUCH AS PACHAKUTIK, RED ETICA Y DEMOCRATICA (RED) AND CONAIE, WHO SUPPORTED THE COUP D'ETAT AGAINST PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA LAST THURSDAY.

ECUADOR: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

By Eva Golinger

On the morning of Thursday, September 30, 2010, the city of Quito, capital of Ecuador, awoke in chaos. Groups of rebellious, armed police had taken over several areas of the city, disrupting transit, burning tires and violently protesting what they alleged was an unfair law set to cut their wages.

In an attempt to quell the situation, President Rafael Correa, immediately decided in-person dialogue would be the best way to explain to the insubordinate and rioting police officers that the law they opposed was actually going to improve their wages, benefits and overall job security.

Around 9:30am, Correa informed his entourage he would be going to the police Regiment Quito Number One to talk to the officers. Upon his arrival, police were yelling and shouting at him, many wearing hoods and gasmasks covering their faces. The Ecuadoran President opted to grap a microphone and address the angry crowd, trying to explain the benefits of the new law to them while also pointing out that clearly, they were being deceived and manipulated by interested forces seeking to desestabilize the country and his government.

The police wouldn’t listen to reason. They continued to demand Correa retract the law, while, weapons drawn, they fired tear gas at him and threw rocks and other hard items towards him and his entourage. Realizing no dialogue was possible under the circumstances, Correa defiantly exclaimed that he would not bow down to such pressure through violence and force. His government would stand by the law. “Kill me if you want, but I will not be forced to act through violence”, he declared before the crowd of armed, enraged police.

Some took his challenge seriously. As his security team tried to escort him from the scene, President Correa was hit and attacked by several police officers and items hurled from the angry crowd. A tear gas bomb almost grazed his head, while the mob around him tried to kick him in his recently-operated knee, because of which he was still walking with a cane. Official recordings later revealed that during those tense and dangerous moments, police officers called out to “kill him” on their radios. “Kill the President”, “Kill Correa”, “He won’t get out alive today”, ordered the higher-ranking officers on the internal police patrol radios.

“Kill them all, open fire, shoot them, ambush them, but don’t let that bastard leave”, said police over the radios, referring to the President and the team of ministers and secret service that accompanied him. “Kill that ‘s.o.b’ Correa”, they shouted, with clear intention to assassinate the head of state.

The President’s people barreled through the crowd, carrying him out while pushing back the violent police with force. Because of the toxic inhalation of gases during the incident, President Correa was taken to the nearby military hospital. Once inside, military and police forces involved in the rebellion wouldn’t let him leave.

“You’re not leaving here until you sign”, they ordered their Commander in Chief, indicating he sign a paper retracting the law they disliked. But Ecuador’s head of state held his position. “Through force, nothing. Through dialogue, everything”, he declared.

Days after, President Correa reflected on that moment. “I sincerely believed I wasn’t going to get out alive. I felt sorry for my family. More than fear, I felt serenity and sadness that we had arrived to this point”, he confessed before international media during a press conference after the whole ordeal ended.

COORDINATED COUP

As the President was held hostage in the hospital, military forces shut down Quito’s air force base and halted all flights from the international airport. The coup was beginning to take shape.

As thousands of Correa’s supporters filled the streets to protest the coup, they were met by police violence and repression. Security forces also impeded pro-Correa parliament members from accessing the National Assembly. Hours later, political groups supporting the coup violently forced their way into Ecuador’s state television station, Ecuador TV, to air their intentions and accuse President Correa of provoking the national crisis.

In Guayaquil, looting and rioting was rampant, and insubordinate police also joined the rebellion. Several anti-Correa organizations began to emit declarations calling for President Correa’s resignation and to dissolve his government and parliament. Some of these organizations, such as the indigenous coalition Pachakutik, have members and sectors that receive funding from US agencies, including USAID, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

During an interview on CNN from Brazil, former president and coup-leader Lucio Gutierrez called for President Correa’s resignation and blamed him for the situation in the country. Hours before, Correa had implicated Gutierrez in the coup attempt underway. “I reject the accusations made by President Correa and deny that a coup attempt is taking place. It’s just a police protest and a demonstration of the terrible economic policies of Correa in Ecuador”, said Gutierrez, adding, “This could be a self-imposed coup, like Hugo Chavez did, many international media are doubting he was kidnapped”. (Note: A coup was executed against Venezuelan President Chavez in April 2002 by an opposition coalition of dissident military officers, business leaders, political groups and private media, supported by the Bush administration. It failed after 48 hours, though Chavez was held hostage by coup forces until he was rescued by loyal military officers).

Gutierrez himself was ousted by popular rebellion and imprisoned for corruption just two years after taking office in 2003. Since then, he has run against Correa in the presidential elections. Last year he lost to Correa’s 55% landslide victory, taking only 28% of the vote.

After the coup on Thursday, President Correa reiterated his claim that Gutierrez was one of the forces behind the destabilization attempt. “Clearly Patriotic Society (Gutierrez’s party) and the Gutierrez brothers are behind this”. The Ecuadoran head of state also blamed right-wing US groups for supporting the coup. “Just like in Honduras, opposition groups in Ecuador receive funding from ‘right-wing’ organizations in the United States”, he declared.

USAID, NED, NDI and other US agencies operate multimillion-dollar programs in Ecuador to fund and train political parties, organizations and programs that promote US agenda throughout the country. During both the 2002 coup in Venezuela against President Hugo Chavez and the 2009 coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, groups perpetuating the destabilization received US funding and support.

DRAMATIC RESCUE

After nearly eight hours held hostage by violent police forces, President Correa was rescued in a late night operation by Special Forces. The heavily armed camaflouged military forces raided the hospital, engaging in dangerous cross-fire with police involved in the coup. The President was secured and taken out in a wheelchair, while the bullet fire continued. His car was hit several times with bullets, in a clear attempt to assassinate him.

At least ten people were killed and over 200 injured during the coup attempt.

Afterward, President Correa was received at the Presidential Palace by hundreds of supporters who cheered him on, expressing their indignation at the events of the day, vowing to “radicalize” their “citizen’s revolution”, as Correa’s policies are termed in Ecuador.

Throughout the day, regional leaders expressed their condemnation of the coup attempt and reiterated absolute support for President Correa. Near midnight, South American heads of state from Bolivia, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru and Venezuela gathered in Argentina for an emergency UNASUR meeting to back Correa and seek solutions to the crisis. They embraced with relief as the images of Correa’s rescue were broadcast across the continent on Telesur, Latin America’s television station.

The coup had been stopped, but the forces behind it still remain active. Ecuador imposed a state of emergency last Thursday, which was extended this week through Friday. As the dust settles on the attempted coup, the parties and actors involved become more visible.

US-funded organizations, big business interests, police and military trained at the US School of the Americas, Cold War relics from US agencies, including Norman A. Bailey, veteran intelligence specialist working closely with opposition groups, and politicians such as Lucio Gutierrez, a strong Bush-ally, were all involved in trying to overthrow Rafael Correa’s government. They failed this time around, but the threat remains. Ecuador hasn’t seen its last coup d’etat.

T/ Eva Golinger

BULLET THAT HIT PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA'S ROOM

DURING THE ATTEMPTED COUP YESTERDAY IN ECUADOR AGAINST PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA, BULLETS HIT THE ROOM HE WAS SEQUESTERED IN DURING THE LATE NIGHT RESCUE OPERATION. INVESTIGATORS CONCLUDED COUP FORCES WERE ATTEMPTING TO ASSASSINATE HIM BEFORE HE COULD BE RESCUED. THE CAR THAT TOOK HIM BACK TO THE PRESIDENTIAL PALACE WAS ALSO HIT WITH SEVERAL BULLETS, INCLUDING ON THE SIDE WHERE HE WAS TRAVELING.