CounterPunch By LAURA FLANDERS

Editors' Note: Chilean author Isabel Allende has lived through a dictatorship once and she's not about to sit by and watch democracy stolen a second time.

In her latest memoir, My Invented Country: A Nostalgic Journey through Chile, she explores her recollections of her homeland, the lessons of its history, and her understanding of what it means to be Chilean, and now, an American.

Allende was interviewed by Laura Flanders and by the audience of Working Assets Radio, a call-in program heard Monday-Friday on KALW-91.7 fm in San Francisco and on www.workingassetsradio.com. The interview took place on May 29, 2003.

LF: The coup of September 11, 1973 in Chile, which overthrew your cousin Salvador Allende, and the attacks on the same date in the United States. You say these two September 11ths, separated by almost thirty years have come to make all the difference in your life and that the attacks on the United States shifted your relationship both to Chile and to this country your home, now, for many years. Can you explain?

IA: Well. On a Tuesday, September 11, 1973, we had a military coup in Chile. It was a terrorist attack on a democracy sponsored by the CIA. Many years later, we had a terrorist attack on this democracy, on the United States, where I am living. I think that in my mind, both events have a great meaning because in the first one, I lost my country. I had to leave, and I lived in exile for many, many years. And the second event made me feel I belonged -- I gained a country. And the feeling came for the first time; I felt that I could relate to the vulnerability that people were feeling.

When I came to the United States 16 years ago, one of the things that I told my husband was that this was a very arrogant country. It was a sort of childish optimism and childish arrogance that, nothing could happen here, that everybody was safe and we would prosper indefinitely and that everything would always be better and better. And that's not how life is in the rest of the world. So I always felt very alien. And then, for the first time, on September 11, 2001, I think that people realized how life is for the rest of the world and I could relate to that.

LF: Now, when you go to Chile in your writings here in the latest book, My Invented Country, the majority of the book is about the pre-1973 period, in which, as you describe it, Chileans, certainly of the class to which you belonged, had some of the same denial, at least as you describe it. You say: "We Chileans had no idea what a military coup entailed, because we had a long and solid democratic tradition." You write: "No, that would never happen to us, we proclaimed, [pointing at "Banana Republics" elsewhere] because in Chile even the soldiers believed in Democracy. No one would dare violate our constitution."

IA: Well, it was violated. In 24 hours, everything changed. And it can happen anywhere. It happened in Italy in Spain in Germany, it has happened everywhere in world. So no one is immune to something like that. And I think that it is important to remember that. That we only appreciate what we have when we lose it. And that can happen with health or that can happen with democracy. And it did happen that way in Chile.

LF: Were you aware, immediately, of the change that had just happened in your life?

IA: No. It was very sudden. It happened in a day, but we were not aware because there was censorship. All the media was censored and there was now news, only rumors. Also, because we had this long tradition in democracy, we thought that the soldiers would go back to their barracks in a week and they would call elections again. We never - I think that not even the military - expected it to last 17 years and have the brutal characteristics that id had. It was a surprise.

LF: Now, many of the Allende family - the closer family, perhaps, left, right after the coup. I think you said before; there was a plane sent, or a boat from Mexico on which people were able to leave. You didn't. You stayed, you continued to do work of a kind a*| at what point did you realize you have to get out and you went to Venezuela?

IA: I think it was like a year later. I realized a*| slowly I realized that I had been involved in things that were a*| that you could lose your life for - like hiding people and smuggling information out of the country and trying to put people in embassies to find asylum and that sort of thing. I got more and more scared. I felt that the circle of repression was closing around my neck and there was a point at which I just couldn't take it anymore. There were several signs that I was in a "black list." All this was, as I have said before, just rumors. Nothing was ever confirmed. The rules changed all the time. The repression became more and more efficient, more effective. And that happened rapidly, but in stages.

You know, it is something very strange: You learn to live with things. For example, something is taken away, like let's say, the freedom of the press or a*| yeah, let's say that you're telephones are tapped so you say "Okay, I can live with that" and then the next day something else, and then you say, "Okay, I will have to live with that too," and so forth. And then after a few months, you realize that you have lost everything. But, you got sort of used to it. And then there's a point when you're talking torture at breakfast time with you kids. And all of a sudden you have this epiphany or this revelation in which you realize what kind of life you are having a*| and then there is a point where I left.

LF: Ultimately, Pinochet was tripped up on his own legal shenanigans, leaving open the cases of the many, many, many disappeared and thus leaving the legal case open enough to prosecute. When he was indicted, there was an excitement throughout Latin America in particular, that finally, justice would be served - that finally, there would be an end of this culture of impunity. What's happened to that feeling now?

AI: Well, I think we know that there is impunity, but there is impunity in the world. Look at the horrible things that other people have done - the United States to begin with - and there is impunity. People who should have been punished for their crimes have not. And people who have not committed crimes go to the electric chair. So the world is a very unjust, unfair place and we have to live with that. Historically, there is impunity for most crimes.

LF: Do you think Americans generally have the sense of there being a "Culture of Impunity" right here?

IA: No. Not at all. I think that we have, in the United States, that we are the best country in the world, that we have the best democracy, that justice is always served, that the bad guys always pay, that the good guys are always rewarded, etc. The Hollywood thing.

But when we analyze our history and our country, we realize that a lot of things go wrong, very wrong.

LF: You comment about 9/11 that in a sense it gave you a different mission, a new mission a*| how would you describe the difference?

IA: When I came to this country, I came because I fell in love or in lust with a guy. I was not following the American Dream. I did not know that the American Dream existed, and I came here with the idea that I would get this guy out of my system in a week and I would go back. And that was 16 years ago, he's still in my system, and I have become American.

I love this country and I want to change the things that I don't like, and I think that I belong and I have a mission. My mission is to be a bridge between two cultures.

I speak English and Spanish. I write in Spanish, my books are published in English. I find myself with a microphone, addressing audiences all the time. So, I am in a position to tell them the things that I see abroad and people don't know here. They're misinformed or they don't care, because they don't know, really, what's happening.

LF: What is the top of your list of things to tell?

IA: Peace. Peace is the top of the list, because we think that we can go into another country and invade another country and we have the right to do so. And we invent all kinds of excuses to do it and now are inventing excuses to invade Iran or Syria or whatever. And that is not something we can do w/ impunity. Sooner or later, we pay for that. And I think that people should know that.

CALLER: Keith in Fairfax - Will the US apologize?

IA: No, the United States will not apologize and that's not the point. The point is that we don't commit the same thing again and again. Because, the same thing was done in Nicaragua, in Guatemala. We supported the Contras, we supported Noriega in Panama. We have supported all the worst dictatorships in all of Latin America. We have destroyed democratic governments to install tyrants - the kind of government that we will never tolerate in this country.

So, that is what needs to be changed. Have a vision of the world. When September 11 happened, people asked for the first time the question, "Why do they hate us?"

They had never asked the question before, and they were not even aware of what was going on abroad.

The world starts to exist, for Americans, when we are in conflict with a place. And then all of a sudden, Afghanistan pops up on the TV screen and it becomes a place. And it exists for three weeks and then it disappears into thin air. And then Iraq pops up, and then we forget about Iraq again and now we focus on something else. Our span of attention is really short.

CALLER: David, talking about The House of the Spirits and how the end upset him [reconciliation] -

IA: The intention of the ending was reconciliation. It says very clearly in the book: not everybody who needs to be punished will be punished. And it says that we have to get over a*| we cannot pay back with violence. We have to a*| Never forget, but forgive. And keep on with our lives. And I think that that has happened in Chile.

That ending of the book was really attacked everywhere when the book came out. And time has proved that that was the only way we could go on and recover democracy. We had to let go. And we had to let go of the idea a*| sometimes even of the idea of justice just to keep on looking at the future.

You know, this was thirty years ago. I've met innumerable people who were victims of the dictatorship. I never have met anybody who says: "I want to rape the rapist, I want to torture the torturer, I want to kill the murderer. Never. People don't want to do that because they're different, they're better. They just want the truth to be known, the dead to be honored, and to go on w/ their lives.

LF: You clearly don't forget, do you forgive the United States for what they did in Chile?

IA: The United States as a country didn't even know what was going on in Chile. It was the government. And you cannot blame the population of the United States for what Kissinger and Nixon did a*| or the CIA. The same way that you cannot blame the United States today for what's going on in Iraq. Because, most people don't even know, what we see on TV is a video game. We don't really know what's going on in there. Now, we have the obligation as educated people to get the information, but not everybody does that.

LF: The story that has grabbed my attention this week is the news from Guantanamo Bay, where we're being told that US officials are essentially planning to turn the place into a death camp - with its own death row, it's own execution chamber. We've already been told that this is a place where 680 detainees can be kept without trial, there will be tribunals without juries and appeals. Now there is talk of even a death sentence being imposed. At what point do we say, here in the United States, do you, with your experience in Chile say: this is just too familiar? We must call this by its name, and what is it?

IA: Well, this is what happened in Germany, with the Nazis. Slowly but surely, the concentration camps and the death camps appeared all over the country and in other countries too. And people thought that they could stand it. Okay, they could just tolerate it because it didn't affect their personal lives.

We have to stop it. We have to stop it now, before it gets out of hand. This government is doing things that are not allowed in our constitution. So we have to react. What are people waiting for God's sake?

Laura Flanders is the host of Working Assets Radio, your open line to the newsmakers of tomorrow and today. Join a live, caller-driven conversation, Monday-Friday, 10-11 am PST at Working Assets Radio and on KALW, 91.7 fm, in San Francisco. She can be reached at: Lflanders@aol.com

Al-Jazeerah.info Ed Blanche Special to The Daily Star, 6/7/03

Reconstruction will cost billions of dollars, and temptation to step away from cartel ú and its production quotas ú will be strong

BEIRUT: The US conquest and occupation of Iraq has given the Americans control of one of the world’s major oil producers, one that many believe has untapped reserves that could rival Saudi Arabia’s and Russia’s. US control could also weaken the grip of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on world markets and, in particular, Saudi Arabia, the cartel’s dominant member. So as the Americans help restore Iraq’s oil industry, badly run down by two wars and 13 years of United Nations sanctions, the key question is whether the country will remain in OPEC now that it has resumed oil exports, albeit at a modest level, after the UN Security Council unshackled it from sanctions imposed in 1990. The Americans have long sought to weaken OPEC, which has been feeling growing pressure from non-cartel producers, particularly Russia, which is vying with Saudi Arabia for dominance of the world oil market. It has also been grappling with what many of its members see as an alarming excess in global oil supplies. This struggle for influence over the oil market should also be seen as part of a wider battle for political leadership in the Gulf. Former Iraqi Oil Minister Fadhil Chalabi, a cousin of Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon-backed leader of the main exile group, the Iraqi National Congress (INC), believes his country could double its proven reserves of 113 billion barrels through widespread exploration and become a “super-giant producer” like Saudi Arabia, putting 10 million barrels  on the market every day. That is clearly a scenario in which Iraq is outside OPEC. Iraq has a geographic advantage that cuts the cost of reaching Western markets ú pipelines that link it to Turkey’s Mediterranean coast. (There are other pipelines to the Red Sea, which the Saudis helped build during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but Riyadh is unlikely to allow Baghdad to use them if it breaks with OPEC.) With that kind of output, with low production costs attracting consumer states away from higher-cost regions like the North Sea, an Iraqi oil industry managed by US-based companies would have the capacity “to bring OPEC to its knees,” according to Chalabi. There are divisions within OPEC itself, particularly over the cartel’s quota system, designed to keep prices at or above $25 a barrel. Algeria, Nigeria and some of the other members are demanding larger shares of OPEC’s production total, which would have to be at Saudi Arabia’s expense. Iraq’s de facto oil minister, Thamir Ghadhban, said on May 26 that “we really don’t have any problem with OPEC” and that the question of withdrawing from the cartel was not currently on the agenda of the US-appointed administration running Iraq. US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said whether Iraq stays in OPEC is entirely up to the Iraqis. “We will support their decision, not impose a decision,” he declared on April 28. But Philip J. Carroll, the US executive chosen by the Pentagon to advise Iraq’s post-war Oil Ministry, has suggested that Iraq might be best served by disregarding OPEC quotas, the strongest indication so far that the Americans might push whatever government emerges in Iraq into breaking ranks with the cartel. It also underlines the repeated allegation that one of the imperatives that drove the Americans into invading Iraq in the first place was to control its oil resources, the better to lessen its reliance on Saudi Arabia. As it is, the return of Iraq ú which has operated outside OPEC since the 1990 invasion of Kuwait ú as a major exporter under a new government would cause considerable uncertainty. Iraq has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia, and its return to the market unconstrained by the cartel could further erode OPEC’s already limited ability to set prices. It might even trigger a price war that would weaken the Saudis and other cartel members. That would, of course, delight the Americans (and other consumers), who have been hoping to break OPEC’s grip on pricing for many years. Carroll, formerly Royal Dutch/Shell’s chief in the US, insists that he is not the instrument of an Iraqi oil policy that would sabotage OPEC. But as he told The Washington Post in mid-May: “In the final analysis, Iraq’s role in OPEC or in any other international organization is something that has to be left to the Iraqi government.” Already, officials in the Oil Ministry ú now supervised by US forces ú are actively considering pulling Iraq out of OPEC and exporting as much oil as possible, as soon as possible, to maximize revenue once the oil fields have returned to full capacity. Earlier this year, US-backed Iraqi exiles, including Ahmed Chalabi, whom the Pentagon wants to see in key government posts drew up a policy document which recommended that Baghdad renounce OPEC’s production restrictions, and noted that it may have to withdraw from the cartel if it sought to impose unacceptable ceilings. Before the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was producing more than 3 million barrels per day (bpd). With the imposition of UN sanctions in 1990, it was excluded from OPEC’s production quotas. Under the UN’s “oil-for-food” agreement it was allowed to produce all that its increasingly dilapidated oil industry could manage and before the US invasion was producing around 2 million bpd. Output ground to a standstill because of the conflict but is expected to resume on a limited scale in the next few weeks. Iraqi oil officials estimate the country will be able to export around 750,000 bpd by late June, with expectations that this can be boosted quite rapidly to 1.5 million bpd, half of which would be for domestic consumption. Production is expected to hit the pre-1990 OPEC quota level of 3 million bpd within 18 months and 3.5 million bpd six months after that. Then, by opening up fields that have gone untapped because of the sanctions, it is anticipated that production could reach as high as 6 million bpd in five or six years ú almost as much as Saudi Arabia’s output level. That would amount to nearly one-quarter of OPEC’s current targeted production of 24.5 million bpd and would mean that other OPEC members would have to give up a lot of output ú and revenue ú to accommodate Iraq. With increased output pushing prices down, OPEC would be in trouble. The Saudis, as the cartel’s largest producer with nearly one-third of its output, would be under intense pressure to lower their output. As it is, OPEC’s share of the world oil market has dropped from a peak of around 90 percent in the 1970s to around 39 percent now. This is because since the OPEC-induced oil shocks of the 1970s and the recession they caused, the US and other industrialized states have sought to obtain more oil from non-OPEC producers. Current US and European efforts to open up giant new fields in West Africa, the Caspian Basin, Siberia and elsewhere will further undermine OPEC’s clout. OPEC is scheduled to meet in Qatar on June 11 to consider a new cut in production ú currently running at 25.4 million bpd ú to accommodate Iraq’s return to the market and avoid a possible price collapse. Before the US invasion, former Venezuelan Oil Minister Humberto Calderon opined: “After the war there will be a substantial increase in Iraqi oil production and I wouldn’t be surprised is schemes emerged to weaken, if not destroy, OPEC.” The US-British declaration that they are the occupying powers and will continue to run Iraq underlines their control of the country’s oil industry. The coalition’s failure to produce even a transitional government by now means that it will remain in charge for a lot longer than expected ú up to a year, according to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Even proposals for an Iraqi government have been downgraded to the level of an “Iraqi authority” with lesser, though still undefined powers. The Bush administration ú which Victor Poleo, professor of graduate studies in oil economics at Central University in Caracas, Venezuela, calls “an oil directorate” because of its strong links to the oil industry ú has already made clear that the lion’s share of the fat contracts worth an estimated $30 billion-$100 billion will go to US firms. That includes refurbishing and exploiting the oil fields. Russia, France and China, which had supported Baghdad in the UN Security Council in 1991-2003, are unlikely to be allowed to implement the major oil contracts they signed with Saddam Hussein’s regime, which means urgently needed investment from that quarter will not be forthcoming. The Americans are expected to urge the Iraqis to privatize what had been a state-owned industry that enriched Saddam and his henchmen on a vast scale. Privatization is anathema to most of OPEC, particularly the Saudis, but if Iraq goes that route, opening up to large amounts of outside investment, it would put the other producers under pressure to do the same since they are increasingly in need of investment to upgrade and expand their oil industries, in most cases their primary revenue-earner. Such a move would also weaken OPEC’s influence. Carroll has said that Iraq might best be served by exporting as much oil as it can and ignoring the quotas set by OPEC, giving the strongest indication so far that a future Iraqi government might quit the cartel that Baghdad helped found in 1960. He told The Los Angeles Times on May 16: “Historically, Iraq has had, let’s say, an irregular participation in OPEC quota systems. They have from time to time, because of compelling national interest, elected to opt out of the quota system and pursue their own path. They may elect to do that same thing. To me, it’s a very important national question.” Leading figures in OPEC, and elsewhere in the oil industry, do not believe the Iraqis themselves will quit the cartel, but could do so with US prodding. Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi declared in late May that he saw no reason why OPEC could not cope with Iraq’s resumption of exports and said it would be “folly’ to leave the market to determine oil prices. Maintaining oil prices, and revenues, would be a key priority for any Iraqi government, he noted. “Iraq, like other producing states, be they in or out of OPEC, is keen to realize a fair and stable income from its petroleum resources,” he said, “and more particularly for the reconstruction and rebuilding of its production capacity.” Fadhil Chalabi says he prefers staying within OPEC, but he also stressed that “Iraq is going to need a lot of money in the next five years ú up to $300 billion … Iraq must maximize revenue from its oil ú with or without OPEC.”  

Agence France-Presse New York, June 7

World oil prices bubbled higher as nerves mounted ahead of an Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) meeting to manage output.

New York's light sweet crude July contract climbed 54 cents to $31.28 a barrel on Friday.

In London, the price of benchmark Brent North Sea crude oil for July delivery rose 36 cents to $27.80 per barrel.

Traders were buying in advance of the OPEC meeting in Qatar on June 11, said Fimat USA analyst Steve Bellino.

"I absolutely do not believe they are going to cut production," Bellino said.

"But there will comments that if the market seems to be getting well supplied, they could very well have an emergency meeting to cut production," he predicted.

A strong market caused by low stocks in the United States ahead of the gasoline-intensive summer holiday season reduced the likelihood of an OPEC production cut, analysts said.

But speculation about a cut had been re-awakened by a Madrid meeting between Saudi oil minister Ali al-Nuaimi, Venezuelan energy minister Rafael Ramirez and their Mexican colleague Ernesto Martens.

"Judging by the way the market has recovered so well... maybe it (the meeting) has raised some speculation about a production cut on June 11," said Prudential Bache analyst, Tony Machacek in London.

Commerzbank analyst Jon Rigby in London said OPEC members Saudi Arabia and Venezuela may be looking for a commitment by non-member Mexico to support prices if needed in the future.

Mi querido, apreciado, admirado y respetado Alejandro,

Tengo que arrancar esta carta abierta felicitándote por tu IMPRESIONANTE ESFUERZO en pro de la libertad de este noble pueblo.  Además, a todos nos consta que tu empeño de libertad verdadera y justa no es nuevo, pues llevas la vida en esa insistencia brotada de tu corazón, a costa del mayor esfuerzo y precio.

El pequeño pueblo de Deer Park, en el estado de Washington (EE.UU.), donde tuve la suerte de estudiar mi bachillerato en la década de los sesenta, no ganó en su historia un solo juego de fútbol (“americano”) hasta que llegó Max Sánchez -- un coach profesional retirado contratado por un anciano millonario del pueblo que amaba el fútbol -- y nos enseñó a obtener victorias con métodos que iban más allá del entrenamiento técnico y físico.  Sería muy largo hoy abundar en la táctica del querido y muy recordado Max, pero te diré que cuando nos retirábamos a las duchas en el “break” -- luego de finalizado el primer tiempo -- para descansar y obtener de nuestro coach la estrategia final del remate, éste siempre arreciaba al extremo y exageradamente la presión cuando nuestro equipo IBA GANANDO el partido.  

En aquella, nuestra primera temporada, cuando llegamos a juego final por el campeonato estadal, se me ocurrió meter un “touch down” en el primer tiempo.  Llegué a las duchas en el “break” sintiéndome el héroe de aquel pueblo que había recorrido 200 millas para vernos triunfar.   Max me llenó de insultos y reproches, preguntándome si con ese “touch down” que había anotado en el primer tiempo pensaba que el “mandado” estaba hecho.  Nos dijo a todos que éramos unas “niñas” flojas y malcriadas… y nos conminó a salir al campo en el segundo tiempo con furia y rencor, pues la importante y decisiva victoria – según él la veía – estaba tremendamente lejos.

Deer Park pertenecía a la última categoría de los equipos de high school.   Se trataba de un pueblo de 3.000 habitantes.  Nos enfrentamos -- entrando el invierno del 67 -- al número uno de la primera categoría del estado de Washington, un high school de casi 2.500 alumnos ubicado en el mero centro de la ciudad de Seattle.  No ganamos el campeonato, pero quedamos Co-Campeones, gracias a Max Sánchez y a su muy peculiar manera de eliminar nuestro “triunfalismo”.

No te me vayas a achicopalar porque alguien como yo te diga que te falta ese toque final para poder llevarle un mensaje concreto y cierto a todas esas personas que con tanto gusto y esperanza van a escuchar tus conferencias en las múltiples asambleas que has venido organizando con tanto éxito de convocatoria a lo largo del país.  Piensa en Max Sánchez y enfrenta el reto de encontrar ese “pequeño detalle” del cual todavía carecen nuestros líderes.

Me voy a permitir emplear parte de la trascripción de tu propio discurso para hacer entre ella mis constructivas críticas:

1.. No habrá referéndum, porque Chávez representa un ejército de ocupación dirigido por Fidel Castro, que no entregará a Venezuela pacífica y voluntariamente.  Solo podrá vencérsele mediante mecanismos de fuerza contemplados en la Constitución.

1000% de acuerdo.  Muy bueno que le hables claro a tus oyentes en cuanto a que estamos frente al  “Ejército Cubano de Ocupación”, así: con nombre propio y en negritas.   Bien.  Solo falta aquí que nos digas CONCRÉTAMENTE cuáles son esos mecanismos de fuerza contemplados en la constitución.   No te olvides que cada día tendremos menos oportunidad de llegarle libremente a nuestro público.  Si “guaraleamos” mucho y no vamos al MERO GRANO del MEOLLO, se nos hará tarde y nos caerá la noche.

2.. Lamentablemente, la Oposición "oficial" insiste en decirle a la población que a Chávez puede removérsele del gobierno por la vía electoral; cometiendo el grave error de darle tiempo al Régimen para que fortalezca su maquinaria bélica paramilitar y desmantele a la FAN.

Este es un punto que a mi entender es tremendamente importante.  Hay que recalcar que NO HAY MUCHO TIEMPO (porque el “Ejército Cubano de Ocupación” no descansa ni un segundo) y con cada minuto que le regalemos al régimen, éste se fortalecerá PROFUNDA E INMENSAMENTE. 

3.. Para organizarse, el primer paso es aceptar la cruda realidad tal cual es, sin ingenuidades, ni fantasías. Mientras se le diga al paciente que tiene gripe, recetándole la aspirina electoral -cuando lo que tiene es cáncer, lo cual requiere de la quimioterapia militar- será imposible organizar la población hacia una salida realista. Es de vital importancia promover centenares de reuniones en todo el país, en donde se le hable claro a la ciudadanía, para lograr el efecto multiplicador deseado.

¿Cuál es el “EFECTO MULTIPLICADOR” que deseamos?  ¿Qué es lo que queremos multiplicar?  Es imperativo que se les diga a nuestros oyentes que se trata de un tumor canceroso en el cerebro del país, el cual requiere de una INMEDIATA INTERVENCIÓN QUIRÚRGICA.  ¿Cuál es la intervención requerida y cómo queda la sociedad civil en esa operación?  ¿Qué se requiere – CONCRETAMENTE -- de nosotros los simples mortales?  Ajá.  Entendemos ya la cruda realidad… ¿y después?  ¿Después que ya todos estemos claros que estamos ante un TUMOR MALIGNO, qué debemos hacer EN CONCRETO para colaborar con el cirujano que operará ese tumor?  Si nos dicen que nos tenemos que organizar nos están dejando en las nubes y así lo pude corroborar en la Asamblea, la cual ya al final se puso un tanto incómoda y violenta, producto de la impotencia de los oyentes ante una realidad que ellos saben Y ENTIENDEN perfectamente.

4.. Una vez que un porcentaje apreciable de la población acepte abierta y públicamente la realidad, podrán llevarse a cabo ciertas acciones de desobediencia civil y de legítima defensa contempladas en el Artículo 350 de la Constitución, que provocarán una crisis terminal del Régimen.

Aquí es donde viene mi crítica más severa a tus palabras, amigo Alejandro.  ¿Qué guarandinga es esa de “CIERTAS ACCIONES”.  Ciertas no: ¡dinos cuáles – a tu juicio -- serán esas acciones!  Dínoslo pronto,  pues tú mismo -- en el punto No. 2 -- aceptas que no nos queda mucho tiempo.   Queremos todos saber cuáles son esas “CIERTAS” acciones de desobediencia civil y de legítima defensa que contempla el Artículo 350 de la constitución ycómo esas acciones pudieran provocar esa tan deseada “crisis terminal” del régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA de los señores Chávez y Castro.  Yo sé lo factible de tu planteamiento efímero y abstracto… creo que en tus futuras intervenciones debes profundizar, concretizar y materializar tu propuesta para que no quede la menor duda y el pueblo pueda organizarse – si así lo considera pertinente -- en torno a tu plan de acción.  Recuerda: ¡no hay mucho tiempo!

5.. Esta "masa crítica" de ciudadanos puede aglutinarse en el corto plazo, puesto que la ciudadanía no es tonta, y ya ha recabado suficientes evidencias de que Chávez no se irá por las buenas.  Hasta ahora, ha estado aprisionada por la visión ingenua de la Oposición oficial, pero ya no se deja manipular como antes.

El problema es que esa masa que no es boba ni tonta, no tiene quien la oriente… al menos no hoy.  La han “guarapeado” tanto que ya no sabe si va o viene.  Luego, ¿qué vía de comunicación contemplas para llegarle a esa masa cuando llegue el momento de convocarla para la acción final? ¿Está cohesionada esa masa ante un ente homólogo?

6.. Mientras se aglutina esa "masa crítica", indispensable para promover las susodichas acciones de desobediencia civil y de legítima defensa, hay que hacer dos cosas: en primer lugar, prepararse psicológica e físicamente para el conflicto que se avecina, lo cual no es cosa menor, puesto que el 80 por ciento del conflicto se gana en primero en la mente y en el corazón del individuo; y en segundo lugar, promover públicamente una intervención militar de carácter constitucional, independiente de que se materialice o no. Los militares han sido entrenados y pagados para defender la Constitución, y han jurado por su honor y por su vida defender la Patria. La Sociedad Civil debe forzarlos a cumplir con su deber, so pena de convertirse en cómplices del ejército de ocupación castrista y, por tanto, traidores a la Patria. En mi opinión, buena parte de ellos se unirán a la Sociedad Civil para desalojar a los invasores.

Mientras se aglutina esa “masa crítica” el régimen pudiera estar ya en control absoluto y total de la situación y lo único que pudiéramos terminar organizando sería nuestra evacuación hacia el destierro.  ¿Susodichas?  ¿Dónde las dijiste? ¿Preparar a la sociedad civil psicológica y físicamente?  ¿Has estado usted alguna vez en un “boot camp” donde el recluta de 18 años recibe su inicial entrenamiento físico y psicológico?  ¿Sabes lo que eso implica?  ¿Cómo promueve esa sociedad civil una intervención militar de carácter constitucional? ¿Cómo se puede forzar a las Fuerzas Armadas para que cumpla con su deber y su juramento? ¿Y si no lo cumple, qué?

Todas estas interrogantes que aquí te he enviado públicamente – tal y como me lo solicitaste en tu carta hacia mí, la cual también se ha hecho pública – pudieran ser analizadas y respondidas concretamente en tus próximas intervenciones.  Nuestros lectores y oyentes están ávidos de PROPUESTAS CONCRETAS.  Si he invertido mi tiempo en irte a escuchar, leerte y contestarte es porque estoy absolutamente seguro de tu capacidad para manejar estos tópicos tan importantes para recuperar la patria y salvarnos de ese tumor canceroso que hoy nos come a todos a pasos agigantados.

Un saludo solidario y “guarimboso”,

Caracas, 15 de junio de 2003

ROBERT ALONSO

Envíen sus comentarios – UNICAMENTE – a robertalonso2003@cantv.net pues los otros buzones colapsan con la cantidad de correo que reciben.  --

PORTAFOLIO VIRTUAL DE ARTÍCULOS Y ENSAYOS DEL MISMO AUTOR

Atlanta Journal Constitution