www.insightmag.com Posted March 6, 2003 By Hans S. Nichols Media Credit: Rick Kozak

The International Republican Institute (IRI) plants the seeds of democracy worldwide, then monitors their growth and celebrates their success. Founded in 1983, it is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group based in Washington that operates in approximately 60 countries, including some widely regarded as the world's most oppressive and authoritarian regimes.

IRI President George A. Folsom is decidedly enthusiastic about the future of democracy. "We are still very much a 'do tank,' not a 'think tank,'" Folsom tells Insight. The institute has program managers stationed across the globe, keeping IRI's headquarters apprised of democracy's ups and downs. Folsom believes he has good reason for optimism. In the era that has followed the Cold War, he claims, "Business is good for democracy; the world climate is right for democracy."

This reporter saw Folsom and his team in action in Macedonia in the fall of 2002, where IRI observed a successful multiparty election in a Balkan country that had been on the brink of civil war one year earlier. Insight recently caught up with Folsom at IRI's Washington headquarters.

Insight: Where are you most optimistic about the chances for democracy today?

George A. Folsom: Cambodia. They have parliamentary elections next July, and we will field a large election-observation mission, as in Macedonia. The Cambodians have shown the willingness to develop a deep democracy that one day will reach international standards. One of the reasons I am so optimistic is that we have been working with some truly courageous people on the ground there -- truly courageous.

Personal Bio

George A. Folsom: Fighter for democracy means business.

Currently: President, International Republican Institute, Washington.

Born: Jan. 2, 1955; Greenville, S.C.

Family: Wife, Suzanne Rich Folsom, and two children, Anderson, 5, and Rilly Ann, 2.

Education: B.A. in international relations, American University, 1977; a J.D. from the University of South Carolina, and an M.A. from the University of South Carolina in international affairs, 1982; Ph.D. candidate, May 2003, at the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies.

Master's thesis: "International Law as an Instrument of Foreign Policy."

Favorite book: Markings, by Dag Hammarskjöld, "a short but intensive study of his personal relationship with God."

Favorite movie: Lawrence of Arabia or Doctor Zhivago. "I can't choose."

Q: In a land where the Khmer Rouge slaughtered an estimated one-third of the country only a generation ago, it must take real courage to fight for democracy.

A: Unfortunately, Cambodia still is a place where assassinations take place with regularity. And it's not just shooting someone in the head with a pistol. What they do is tie a victim's feet and head together behind their back and then hand them over to chop off the head. It's very gruesome.

Yet, in the face of even this kind of intimidation, the Cambodian people have exercised extraordinary courage. For example, we've been working with Kem Sohka, who has just started the Cambodian Center for Human Rights. He is a true Cambodian patriot, and we're in the business of helping patriots build democracies.

Q: How many countries did you visit in 2002?

A: Let's see: Cambodia, Russia, Ecuador, China, Mongolia, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Macedonia, Turkey, South Africa, Qatar, Ukraine and Thailand. That's 14.

I was just in Russia, met with the chairman of the Foreign Policy Committee at the Duma and came away with the view that when it comes to democracy Russia is a study in contrasts.

As the Russians say, you have many Kremlins "managing" democracy, but at the same time you also have the growth of political parties. What's exciting is that those parties are very interested in relating democracy and free enterprise -- tying them together to try to ensure freedom and economic prosperity.

That's something we believe very strongly in as well. You can't be truly free unless you have economic freedom. It's something practical I learned from my father and brother, from their experience running savings and loans: If you have people who own their own homes and finance them, they have a direct, immediate and material interest in local governance and in local schools.

And that's true all across the world.

Q: What's the best way to jump-start democracy in some of these countries, especially those where it has for so long seemed hopeless?

A: I don't believe in one size fits all, either in terms of democracy or economic freedom. Different countries have different histories, customs and traditions. The countries in Latin America, for example, are quite diverse, and you have to tailor your programs accordingly.

Q: How does IRI decide to get involved in a country?

A: There are three criteria to be considered before IRI might engage in operations in a country.

First: Is there an opportunity for IRI to play a role? This criterion used to be, is that country moving in the right direction? But that's been broadened, which could mean a negative direction, as in Argentina.

The second criterion: Is the country of strategic interest to the United States?

And third: Can IRI make a difference in moving that country toward democracy?

Q: How do these criteria fit with what IRI is doing in Latin America?

A: Sometimes a country such as Argentina will take a step backward. We have to accept that. But throughout all Latin America it boils down to governing with transparency.

When ordinary citizens suspect that the elites are not fairly governing the political economy, they are going to throw those elites out of power. That's what has happened in Venezuela, for example, allowing [President] Hugo Chavez to come to power.

Q: In how many countries do you maintain offices?

A: We try to operate with a very light footprint. Because we want to keep our overhead very low, we like to use regional offices. I think it was something like 57 countries at the end of this last calendar year.

But we're expanding all the time. When IRI was started back in 1984, we were in only 10 countries. During the last year we've experienced tremendous growth, increasing our size by 32 percent in one year.

And that's good business for democracy. In the years since the Cold War we have created a much more diverse organization to take advantage of this very good time for democracy.

Q: Where are the bright spots these days?

A: Our polling data indicate that, long term, we should be cautiously optimistic about the West Bank/Gaza after [Yasser] Arafat. But I need to stress the long-term part.

Q: Is it critical that Arafat goes first?

A: I am not going to be particular about the sequencing.

Q: Where are you most pessimistic?

A: I would say countries such as Belarus, where there is the last dictator in Europe. Closely behind Belarus would be Ukraine.

Still, we are working very hard with the democratic opposition and a broad array of political actors and political parties in both countries. But, at the end of the day, there's a relationship between the development of democracy and visible security. Right now the people who work for democracy in Belarus are subject to systematic physical intimidation.

Q: Do you have a program for democracy in Pakistan?

A: We have a very small one there, though it should be getting bigger this year. I am very excited about what's happening in Afghanistan and everywhere else in that region.

In Afghanistan we are working to recreate both the civil and political society. That's a big task, but we're making progress. For example, we have successfully moved an Afghan-language newspaper from Peshawar, Pakistan, back to Kabul, the Afghani capital. They are now publishing five days a week. The objective is that they publish in three different languages.

I am really looking forward to working with new Afghani political parties. I met with a coalition of them in Seoul, Korea, at the Community of Democracies conference. It was a very successful meeting.

It would make an interesting study to compare and contrast how political parties fare and operate in authoritarian environments such as Belarus, Cuba, Burma and Zimbabwe. Just what do they do under such adverse circumstances to try to advance democratic opportunities?

Q: What does globalization, that great nemesis of the current left, mean for democracy?

A: There's not a day goes by that I don't think about globalization from the democratic point of view. IRI is at the democratic tip of the globalization sphere. We are working at the micro level to build healthy democracies. Those democracies sometimes are nascent, sometimes robust. The important thing is that we are building. We are helping to build democracies and it is really exciting.

Q: Of the three countries in President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," where will we see democracy take hold first?

A: We already are seeing the beginnings of democracy in Iran. I would counsel that demographic trends in a country that increasingly is a nation of young people are very favorable to the development of a robust democracy.

North Korea probably would be dead last because of the extremely authoritarian nature of the regime.

Hans S. Nichols is a writer for The Hill.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 By: Cecil Kirkman

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:01:29 -0500 From: Cecil Kirkman cecilkir@cox.net To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Educate us in the way of truth and freedom

Dear Editor: Reference Mr. John Kaminski's letter to VHeadline.com,  he has now told us and the world what is wrong with America and called our people liars and thieves, who are bent on dominating and enslaving the entire world. He said, "Americans don't tell the truth to anyone, least of all themselves. And I direct this at not just the government, but also at the American people." Reading his letter, one wonders how America could possibly have risen to be the world's only superpower.  Why did not the rest of the world stop us. They have had over 200 years to crush us infidels and they certainly outnumber us both with manpower and resources!

• One also wonders, why in the name of creation, he, knowing all these facts about the evil of America, he continues to live in such a God hating society that is only bent on death and destruction of innocent civilians, especially the helpless children of the world?

Why?  When there are so many good places to live in the world, so many righteous and honest, humanitarian, and loving societies, such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea ... why does he continue to choose to live here?

Are we devil worshipping Americans holding him here?

Maybe because here is one of the very few places on this globe where he us free to write such a tirade against the government with impunity, that he continues to live in such a decadent society. Or does he continue to live here because he knows that thousands of Americans have given their lives so that he might say what he thinks?  No, it could not be this for these stupid Americans gave their lives so that we could dominate the world. Forgive me, I forgot the truth there for a moment.

Anyways, now that he has told us everything that we are doing wrong, please do me a favor.  Why not follow up his letter and tell us just exactly what it is that we Americans should be doing. Enlighten us with his wisdom, and show us the way we should live. Tell us what our government should be doing. He wrote, "It's time to do something about it. Although massive logistical problems and ad hoc legal procedures need to be developed, this would work, I think. And Thomas Jefferson would like it a lot." Remember, we Americans are so stupid, we need him to tell us what "massive logistical problems and ad hoc legal procedures need to be developed."

Just how do we go about doing this?

We would be forever in his debt ...and Thomas Jefferson would love him.

Horace V. Kirkman Cecilkir@cox.net

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 By: Steven Hunt

US-based commentarist Steven Hunt writes: The Financial Times is supposed to be some of the best reporting from the UK.  However, Andrew Webb-Vidal's piece entitled "Terror Groups Relocating to US's Backyard", dated March 4, 2003,  is mere crass ideology disguised as astute analysis.

Vidal-Webb quotes General James Hill, head honcho at the US Southern Command, as sounding the alarm that Middle Eastern terrorist groups are jeopardizing US security by establishing a foot hold in Latin America.  Hill, points to Venezuela's Margarita Island as one of the new "terrorist" hotspots.

So in the first few paragraphs of the story we, the average readers, have the central point, spoken from the mount of the most powerful military commander in the Americas:  terrorists have set up shop on Margarita Island.

Vidal-Webb makes explicit that certain "security experts" (that tellingly go unnamed) say that "as yet" no regional governments can definitively be said to be aiding these Middle Eastern terrorists.  But the FT reporter states that US officials (again, un-named) are "worried that weak state institutions are making the region a haven for operatives" with links to al-Qaeda, Osama's group.

The "weak state institutions", or the specific states, are not singled out by Vidal-Webb.  But, of course, since Venezuela is singled out in this story, any competent reader would assume that Venezuela has "weak state institutions."

If there would be any doubt in the reader's mind as to which states pose the US a problem, than those are laid to rest when the reporter quotes Fernando Falcon, a former Venezuelan state security police chief.  Falcon ominously states that "If I were al-Qaeda, I would be setting up in Venezuela right now."

Again, dear VHeadline readers, pay attention to what gets included and what is omitted:  Webb-Vidal never interviews anyone involved in Venezuelan state security, not one person.  However, the reporters chooses to give voice to a "former" police chief.

A competent reporter, knowing a little about the recent political tumult in Venezuela, might think to ask whether or not former chief Falcon or his political allies have anything to gain by smearing the current government as inept or villainous adjuncts to terror; or as weak in the area of intelligence and enforcement.

(If I were al-Qaeda, I would head straight to Honduras.  The US military has a huge presence in the country and almost everyone is on the make for bribes from foreigners.  Moreover, with the US presence in that country, it would be one of the last places that the US "experts" would think that terrorists would hide.  More, the country is desperately poor--money can buy almost anything, even anonymity.  Moreover, Honduras is a lot closer to the US than is Venezuela.  It would be faster to ship chemical or nuclear weapons from Central America.  If Honduras is good enough for US supported terrorists, for example, the Contras, than it should be adjudged good enough for Third World terrorists from the Middle East.)

Just so we can understand the ideological framework in which Webb-Vidal's vaunted US General Hill is operating within, it is important to understand what this military stooge considers "terrorist".  Hill states that Colombia saw "more terrorist attacks than all the other nations in the world combined."

What General Hill does not point out is that most attacks in Colombia that saw the death of non-combatants, innocent civilians, were carried out by pro-government and pro-US partisans--the rightwing paramilitaries that are documented as having ties to the military, and are responsible for roughly two-thirds of all civilian deaths.

This is one of those "omitted" facts that the US corporate press usually does not see fit to include in stories about the Colombian civil war.

After General Hills statements to the effect that the Colombian conflict could be won, while the US ends up "losing the battle in the rest of the region."

Curiously, Webb-Vidal takes this very ominous warning from the General as  indicating that "the Colombian conflict is becoming enmeshed with increasingly violent political tensions in Venezuela."

Just how this political conflict in Venezuela is connected with the Colombian civil war, the reporter does not say.  But in the next paragraph he highlights two historical "facts": (a) that two powerful bombs went off in the Colombian and Spanish diplomatic missions; and (b) that the attacks followed shortly after President Chavez criticized Colombia, Spain, and the US for involving themselves in Venezuelan affairs.

Thus, like spokespersons for the US government tried to imply, the reporter suggests a casual connection between Chavez's admonishments and the bombings.

Though the FT reporter does present the opinion of the Chavez government about the blast, he quotes--again, unnamed--"intelligence sources in Miami that the terrorists behind the bombings were either left-wing Colombian guerrillas, or a group from the Chavez government!

So there you have it, "intelligence sources in Miami" have the final say in the FT story as to who the likely culprits behind the bombings were.  Since the Colombian, US, and Venezuelan rightwing has long smeared the Chavez government with helping and coddling the FARC.  The average reader is lead to assume that the Venezuelan government is a weak security link that allows the proliferation of Middle East terrorists, and also, that the Chavez government itself was responsible for bombing the diplomatic seats of Colombia and Spain.

Most disturbing and inexcusable, however, is that Webb-Vidal does not think that it is necessary to name the Miami "intelligence" contacts he uses for his report.  They could very well be very rightwing groups that have a history of terrorist attacks on Cuba, we will never know.

Webb-Vidal uses the precious last paragraphs--the ones that tend to leave the greatest impression on the reader--for highlighting the developing US presence in Colombia.  However, what is ostensibly the reason for the US Colombian presence, the war on "drugs", goes unmentioned by Webb-Vidal.  We are given information that Colombian military men have been investigating the movement of FARC rebels into Venezuela.

In the last paragraph we are given a quote from a Mr. Robert Steele, described as "a former deputy director of US Marine intelligence and the private sector advisor":

     "We have cold war mindsets that are not adequate for        today.  The US thinks of Latin America as a benign        backyard.  They are wrong.  It is a nightmare ready to        go north, and the Americans don't understand that."

With Steele's interesting interpretation of Latin America as "a nightmare ready to go north" what are we, the average readers, supposed to come away with from the story.

(1) That Venezuela is a gathering point for terrorists. (2) Venezuela's government is an ideal place for terrorists. (3) That the Chavez government, or its allies, are likely involved with terrorists attacks against the diplomatic seats of Spain and Colombia. (4)  As the noble battle against terrorism is won in Colombia, it is likely to spread throughout the adjacent countries, especially Venezuela. (5) That the US government and its citizens in the north should pay special attention to Latin America because the area has weak, or pro-terrorist states that are planning to cause havoc to innocent civilians in the US.

Again, dear reader, the US public and people in "allied", wealthy nations are being set up--if the lying, fascistic, and morally-defunct elites of the world get their way,  the Chavez regime will become another target in the "war on terrorism".  From Webb-Vidal's unscrupulous reporting we can already see the broad trajectory of what US intelligence and their Venezuelan buddies, the extremists in the opposition, have planned.

Smear the government as "weak" and incapable of controlling terrorists (Middle Eastern or otherwise;  label Chavez as an undemocratic thug, an enemy of human freedom and freedom of the press; talk up or manufacture tensions (between Colombia and Venezuela, Chavez and the opposition); conflate regional terrorism--that is predicated on antagonisms rooted in economics, racism, and social classes--with the US-led global "war on terrorism."

Look for further economic and social destabilization--these are the requisites if the opposition is to ever be successful in any "fair" elections.

Remember, the US would rather not have to deal with an outright invasion, that scenario would yield too many dead US servicemen, such an endeavor would loose favor with a public still shell-shocked from Vietnam.

Thus, the US intelligence "black-braggers" and their ideological cohorts in Venezuela are hoping to cause enough chaos so as to promote a military coup.

None of the above described scenarios are already "written onto the pages of history".  By studying and understanding propaganda, US imperialism and covert actions, we can reasonable understand and counter the ongoing destabilization.

However, more people need to avail themselves of alternative, non-corporate sources of information.  Moreover, commonality, mutual-aid, and authentic solidarity are essential.

They are but a puny, fearful, selfish, and immoral group of fascist agitators and coup-mongers.  But not all the opposition are, however.  Many are merely fearful that historically subordinate groups of people are finally asserting themselves proactively.  In their fear they want to believe those in the opposition that are duplicitous and essentially against democracy.

Where the right-wing has historically deployed death-squads we need to release an even more deadly weapon: love-squads.  Love-squads are people, operating individually or in groups, that are capable of describing the goals of the Bolivarian revolutions to those that have been grossly lied to.

We can share with them our ideals, describe our projects, and more importantly, work to help them in any way that we reasonably can.

Love and cooperation will always triumph over fear and oppression.

This we must believe, but more importantly, really live.

Steven Hunt ecocentricsolutions@earthlink.com

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 By: Robert Rudnicki

According to IRS/Seniat superintendent Trino Alcides Diaz the government is considering implementing a Tobin Tax to cut down on currency speculation, as and when the current currency controls are lifted.

The IRS chief went on to say that he expected the current controls to be the shortest in Venezuelan history, and that the Tobin Tax would be imposed on any foreign currency purchases made for any other purpose than imports and production of goods.

Alcides Diaz also said that the government would consider suspending the foreign exchange controls currently in place if a potential war on Iraq caused significant increases in the international price of oil.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 By: Robert Rudnicki

Lawyer Oscar Arnal has lodged a complaint with the Attorney General's Office accusing President Hugo Chavez Frias of inciting people to commit acts of violence such as state terrorism. 

Arnal alleges that it is the  "fiery, unacceptable, violent and aggressive rhetoric used by the government " that is the main cause of violence currently occurring in Venezuela. 

The lawyer claims that when the President slams the Venezuelan media his supporters then attack journalists and cameramen, and when he criticized the Friends of Venezuela group two bombs exploded. 

The allegation has also been forwarded to United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan and the Organization of American States (OAS) inter-American commission on human rights.