www.scoop.co.nz Saturday, 15 March 2003, 11:11 pm Article: Council on Hemispheric Affairs www.coha.org coha@coha.org March 14, 2003

For Immediate Release Memorandum to the Press 03.11

Aznar's Courtship of Bush Regarding Iraq Could Cost Spain the Fruit of its Return to Latin America

• Sunday's Azores meeting likely to mean more of the same
• Survival of Ibero-American Summit could be jeopardized
• Aznar's delusion of grandeur soars as his popularity in Spain and Latin America falls to new lows
• A vain man, he now sees himself as a member of The Big Three on Iraq, with Bulgaria as his competitor
• Spanish leader turns his back on Mexico and Chile
• Felipe Gonzalez and the King Juan Carlos' good work in replacing the negative legacy of the Spanish Conquest and the cruelty of colonial rule, has largely been dissipated by Aznar's craving to be among the powerful

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's total dedication to President Bush's imperious strategy regarding Iraq could cost Spain dearly in Latin America. In racing to keep up with the U.S. and British-generated Iraqi policy, the Spanish prime minister has turned his back on Latin America, as well as most of his country's traditional, continental allies for the uncertain reward of being pictured in photo-ops with President Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Blair, and in being invited to the presidential ranch.

But Aznar's celebrity status has cost his nation and Latin America dearly. Nor will this Sunday's hastily called meeting on Iraq in the Azores with Bush and Blair be likely to change his domestic isolation.

Spain's position on the UN's dealings with Iraq equates to Aznar stabbing Chile and Mexico in the back and leaving these two UN Security Council Members vulnerable to retaliation from Washington-if they continue to thwart U.S. policy by refusing to sanction an early military attack without allowing additional time for inspections.

Rather than publicly insist that whatever the outcome, the two governments' decisions should be respected, Aznar instead has dutifully aped the language uttered by White House speechwriters. On the surface, Spain would seem to have very little to gain from Aznar's unabashed assumption of Washington's position aside from some modest U.S. handouts and encouraging words about the need to fight Basque terrorists. However, Spain may lose considerably more than it ever had to gain. Firstly, Aznar has triggered what could become the worst crisis in the Ibero-American Summit since its founding. This essentially sentimental rather than functional organization has had as its two European representatives, the very conservative leaders of Portugal and Spain. Both men are woefully out of sync with the present populist direction in which Latin America is now heading. However, Aznar and his Portuguese counterpart have truly failed to take advantage of, or even acknowledge, this powerful and growing trend. Aznar has gone a long way toward undermining Spain's strong identification with the tough human rights and anti-dictatorial standards championed by former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales and King Juan Carlos. The effort of Gonzales and the King allowed Spain to "return" to Latin America in spite of its bitter heritage of conquest and cruelty afflicted on the region during the period of colonial rule.

Aznar's Flawed Past

Aznar's choice to back the U.S. rather than the kindred nations of Chile and Mexico deserves to be viewed as no less than an act of treachery. It is but the latest chapter in Aznar's misbegotten tour of government that has included the botched salvage effort of an oil tanker in November 2002 (leading to a huge oil spill and causing irreparable damage to the Spanish coastline), his attempts to hobble the efforts of a Spanish judge seeking toextradite General Pinochet from Great Britain for human rights derelictions, and an unseemly squabble with Fidel Castro that he ignited at an Ibero-American Summit gathering.

Two years ago, Aznar exhibited his ego and his lust for self-importance by exclaiming to the International Herald Tribune, that Spain is "one of the big guys now," proffering his belief that he has led his country to equal standing with continental giants France and Germany. On its path to international recognition, Spain surpassed the United States as the largest foreign investor in Latin America, even though in recent months, aid to the region has dropped significantly. Aznar made a concerted effort to push his paternalistic sentiments onto needy Central and South America, hoping to become the leading advocate for the Western Hemisphere's 400 million Spanish-speakers. It is this newfound camaraderie that is now in jeopardy and could come to a crashing end as both Spain and Latin America choose sides in the Iraq crisis.

Friendship on the Hoof

President George W. Bush could not have found a more eager or vocal ally in continental Europe than Spain's Aznar. A longtime buddy of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Aznar has been unfailing in his support for Bush's plans to disarm Iraq, forcibly if need be, and with or without the UN's imprimatur. This is a surprising level of harmony from a man who originally felt snubbed by Bush when the newly elected U.S. president butchered his name during a formal television interview, referring to him as "Anzar." Equally at risk is the chilled distance that now fills the void previously warmed by Bush's former rapport with Mexican President Vicente Fox. The new Mexican leader had found his U.S. counterpart so engaging that their personal and political futures appeared inseparable-Fox even brought Bush home to meet his mother. The burgeoning friendship has now been stunted, with Fox canceling a visit to President Bush's Texas ranch because of Bush's outright refusal to stay the execution of a Mexican national. As Bush turned east and west for allies in his War on Terror, he has all but ignored his friends in Latin and South America, replacing them with Blair and Aznar. Bush has also successively named two right-wing ideologues-Otto Reich and Roger Noriega-to be Assistant Secretaries of State for Latin America. As for the visit to the ranch, Fox's designated, but declined, bedroom was now assigned to Aznar.

Mexico Resists the Spanish Temptation

The once promising Bush relationship Bush with Latin America has all but disappeared, as U.S. diplomats sadly discovered that Mexico and Chile, in spite of subtle and not so subtle badgering, would not provide the "easy votes" needed for the U.S. president's UN resolution on Iraq. Spain's vote, however, has been cost-free, despite the barrage of anti-war and anti-U.S. protests that Aznar faces daily. Staunchly anti-war, nearly 80 percent of Spaniards are against joining the U.S. in a non-UN-sanctioned conflict with Iraq. Aznar, however, has chosen not to bow to public opinion by continuing his unflagging support for the U.S. Fox, on the other hand, has remained somewhat steadfast in his call for a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis, although conceivably he might finally buckle out of a sense of pragmatism. On his way to a powwow at Bush's Crawford, TX ranch, Aznar made a crucial stop in Mexico. Perhaps Washington was hoping that Aznar's fluent language skills might be more convincing than Bush's much-touted, yet significantly inferior Spanish. While his visit did nothing to bring Mexico closer to supporting Spain's pro-war position on Iraq, Aznar left Fox claiming he would not dream of attempting to extort Fox or twist his arm into agreement, "President Fox would not tolerate such pressure, as would be natural, nor would it ever occur to me" to employ such strong-arm tactics.

Demonstrations in Venezuela

Mexicans have shown themselves to be adamantly opposed to a military conflict in Iraq. Protest marches have been staged in downtown Mexico City, at the U.S. Embassy, in addition to Mexicans gathering outside the Spanish Embassy to protest Aznar's arrival. The demonstrators held signs saying, "Aznar is not welcome in Mexico" or labeling Aznar as the "European Judas." Fox and the Mexicans are not alone. Throughout Latin America, protests have been staged. Even in embattled Venezuela, where the country appears to be ripping apart over domestic issues, citizens of all political hues have managed to muster a significant anti-war voice. Entangled in anti-Chavez protests, violent strikes, and political upheaval, Venezuelans marched on February 16 in favor of peace. Venezuelan Congressman Dario Vivas participated in the downtown Caracas protest, where he commented, "This is the support for a people that need solidarity." Many Venezuelans are all too aware of what "regime change" means; the U.S. was strongly implicated in the attempt to depose President Hugo Chavez in the failed April 2002 coup attempt. If the U.S. would support the regime change of a democratically-elected, albeit now unpopular, president, what wouldn't the U.S. think to rain down upon an entrenched and madden anti-U.S. dictator? Clearly, Venezuela's show of support is not for the person of Saddam Hussein, rather it is a demonstration of solidarity for the people of Iraq.

Instead of playing the supportive role he has claimed for backing Latin American democratization, Aznar was barely lukewarm in his congratulations to Chavez on regaining executive power. Neither was he outspoken in denouncing the deposition of Chavez in the first place. It appears that Venezuela under Chavez and Spain under Aznar will never be close; too much hostility has been generated by Spain's diplomatic snubbing of Chavez and Venezuela's prickly attitude towards the extradition of resident ETA members whose refuge in Venezuela was negotiated at the time of the Felipe Gonzalez government.

The Rest of Latin America Weighs In

Despite hefty American influence and tight economic ties, Puerto Rican Islanders gathered en masse to protest a U.S.-led war on Iraq. They raised placards calling the United States "the most terrorist country," and waived banners reading "No War for Oil!" Puerto Rico, more than other Latin American countries, has a vested interest in any U.S.-Iraq conflict. As a U.S. commonwealth, the island's National Guard is subject to a U.S. military call-up-the Associated Press reports over 40 percent of the Guard complement has already been called up to serve in the Persian Gulf.

Large anti-U.S. protests occurred in the more industrialized regional nations of Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Nearly 5,000 Brazilians protested on the Copacabana beach and in Sao Paolo. About 8,000 Argentines marched through Buenos Aires up to the gates of the U.S. Embassy on February 15. Chile continues to nurse sore wounds. The Sunday Times reported one Chilean official as saying, "We know very well in Latin America that if the Americans want a regime change, they can do it without resorting to bombing cities." Perhaps the proposed regime change in Iraq is too close for comfort when recalling the U.S.-partially-scripted coup d'etat that deposed democratically-elected Salvador Allende. In his stead, U.S.-backed Augusto Pinochet was installed and went on to become a human rights abuser of such nefarious rank that his reign was in the same league as that of Saddam Hussein. Needless to say, Chile is skeptical of any U.S.-led military confrontation that doesn't have the sanction of the UN. Subsequently, that skepticism would largely color the budding relationship that Spain had hoped to nurture with Chile.

Will Economic Ties Keep Them Bound or Rip Them Apart?

Not even a year ago, Aznar and Latin American leaders met in Madrid, at the EU summit of Latin America and the Caribbean, where they helped to plan new economic developments aimed at strengthening bilateral ties. Commissioner of Economic Affairs for the EU, Pedro Solbes, warned that prompt debt repayments and fiscal discipline were crucial to better trade relations. Mexico's Fox claimed "our relationship with Europe has unlimited potential."

Aznar may have encouraged Spanish business to invest in Latin America, highlighting the investors' protection from bankruptcy. Yet, it was noted at the time that Aznar didn't show comparable zeal in being concerned with the depth of the region's debt problem or that European agricultural subsidies were hurting Latin America's exports to the region. Now the major investor, Spain has a vested interest in keeping the region as stable and prosperous as possible. Because of that vested interest, it is perplexing that Spain is now supporting a military conflict in Iraq, the fall-out of which could threaten the economic and political stability of the region.

This Press Memorandum was prepared by Larry Birns, Director, and Julie Mumford, Research Associate at the Washington, D.C.-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Additional research assistance was contributed by Manuel Rueda.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of our nations' most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers."

indymedia.ie by S. Aerobics Tue, Feb 18 2003, 1:08pm

Documentary : Chavez - Inside the Coup In April 2002 there was an attempt to overthrow Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Irish film-makers Kim Bartley and Donnacha Briain had arrived in the country a couple of months earlier to make a documentary on Chavez. "Our initial interest was in Chavez himself," says O' Brien. "But as soon as we got out there we knew there was something going on, so we stayed on."

The two film-makers were there to record the demonstrations; the shootings; the siege; the surrender. They were also there the next day when Chavez supporters marched on the city to protest, the state television was restored, and the army turned on it's own commanders and forced the release of Chavez. add your comments

COMMENTS

RTE fans! by ipsihpi Tue, Feb 18 2003, 1:42pm

dont miss the ongiong media success that is Radio Telefis Eirinn with global reach and capacity satelites TV websites and competitions magazines and vans RTE is for you! Today RTE (much better than the BBC anyday) listens to Mary Robinson who this morning debated the use of military force against Iraq. Mary is Head of the Ethical Globalisation Initiative, and she says a war may not be the surest way to bring justice to the people of Iraq!!! exclusive stuff with the RTE. at the 3.50second stage you will hear Mary talk about mass mobilisations! did anyone see Mary at London? In one of her first UK speeches since stepping down as UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Mary Robinson will be talked on the theme of human rights in a lecture at LSE on Wednesday 23 October 2002. "From Rhetoric to Reality: making human rights work" Wednesday 23 October, 2pm Peacock Theatre, Portugal Street Mary doesnt like Rhetoric! shes just like Chavez really really honestly and truly.

Mary last weekend whilst all you "rhetoric people were assembling" was doing this...

On January 14, 2003, the Steering Committee of the Ethical Globalisation Initiative (EGI) will be convening its second meeting at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalisation. On January 15, the new Director of the Center, Ernesto Zedillo, will be organizing a brainstorming session for the initiative. Thomas Hammarberg and Harold Koh will be moderating the discussions on the key challenges, possible strategies and thematic issues for the EGI.

brainstorming! less rhetoric more BRAINSTORMING! good on you Mary. dont you have our best interests at heart? coz she spoke to LSE.

What A Coup (sorry!) by black frank Wed, Feb 19 2003, 12:38am Excellent programme, fly-on-the-wall coverage of a coup in action. Lies, propaganda, and Generals in stoopid uniforms. This must be just how it has happened so many times in Latin America, only this time the people managed to regain democracy from the plotters. Funny how the main instigators of the coup had just been in Washington as guests of the US Administration. And how the main culprit is now residing in Miami. And the quote from George Tenet, head of the CIA about the Chavez government not being amenable to US business interests. And how the main culprit is now residing in Miami. And that they have a lot of oil in Venezuela. Viva Chavez!! Viva Video Journalismo!

Brilliant by Mixer Wed, Feb 19 2003, 9:13am What an excellent documentary. Favourite bit is when the opposition to chavez have a meeting looking all radical, and then issue a warning to their members to keep an eye on their domestic servants! Classic! Also when the coup leaders are walking around the palace all glorious like, the look on guards faces is just priceless, you can tell they're not gonna take it much longer. I also loved the coup leader announcing that normality had returned played over pictures of the police laying into the populace. Another classic was the "unbiased" reporter letting slip that the whole coup announcement had been filmed in his house!

Excellent film by silo Wed, Feb 19 2003, 11:21am Excellent film by Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Brien, and congratulations to RTE for showing it. For those of you who missed it, there's a (not-quite-finished) site at www.chavezthefilm.com. Well done!

sf.indymedia.org by indep Saturday February 15, 2003 at 04:39 PM

Groundswell of dissent encircles the globe From Auckland to Amsterdam, from Rio to Rome, millions of citizens poured on to the streets to make their voices heard

By David Randall in London, Peter Popham in Rome and Ruth Elkins in Berlin 16 February 2003

Millions of people around the world poured on to the streets of their towns and cities yesterday to protest against the prospect of a US-led war on Iraq.

The worldwide tidal wave of protest began in New Zealand and rolled around the globe, gathering, as it went, momentum, enthusiasm and a sense of being part of a universal movement. The largest turnout was in Rome, where organisers claimed an attendance of three million. By the end of the weekend, demonstrations will have been held in more than 600 places from Auckland to Iceland, and San Francisco to South Korea.

In Auckland, marchers cheered as a plane flew overhead trailing a giant banner which read: "No War, Peace Now". In Australia, where 150,000 had demonstrated in Melbourne the day before, 16,000 activists marched in Canberra, 10,000 in Perth, and 15,000 in Newcastle, north of Sydney.

There were further marches in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, East Timor, Pakistan, Taipei, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Singapore, South Korea and Japan. Some of those involved were experienced veterans of protest, but many were taking their first uncertain steps on a protest march. Mariko Aoyama, who described herself as a Tokyo housewife, said: "What the United States is doing now is wrong. We are on the brink of World War Three."

The only trouble was in Athens, where several hundred anarchist protesters broke away from the tens of thousands on the main rally, smashed windows, threw a gasoline bomb at a news office and overturned a car. Riot police cordoned off the city's US embassy.

In South Africa, thousands marched in Cape Town and Johannesburg, where Ivan Abrahams, a Methodist minister, said: "We are saying to Bush, you are not the saviour of the world, and we will not bow down to you."

In the Middle East the protests were more muted, but even so, in Damascus 200,000 marched through the streets. In Baghdad, the crowds were strongly encouraged by the extensive military presence around the demonstration. "At times the fervour was almost messianic: as if in a kind of ritualistic tribal worship," Independent on Sunday reporter James McGowan observed.

Europe's demonstrations began in sub-zero temperatures in Russia and in Kiev in the Ukraine, and spread, via Berlin, to dozens of cities across the continent, including Amsterdam, Budapest, Lyon, Marseilles, Sofia, Brussels, Stuttgart, Toulouse, Thessaloniki, Warsaw, Bern, Paris and Copenhagen.

In Mostar, Bosnia, Muslims and Croats united for an anti-war protest, the first such cross-community action in seven years in a place where ethnic divisions still remain strong. And in Cyprus, Turks and Greeks marched together, briefly blocking a runway at a British airbase. In Tel Aviv, too, usual conflicts were forgotten as Israelis and Palestinians marched side by side against a war.

In Rome, a vast, dazzlingly colourful tide of people estimated by the organisers to number three million swamped the city yesterday afternoon, practically encircling the ancient heart and uniting monks and nuns, communists and anarchists and hundreds of thousands of ordinary Italians in protest against the policies of Bush and Blair.

"Stop the war" read a huge banner on the stage at march's conclusion on Piazza San Giovanni above a blow-up of Picasso's Guernica. Air-raid sirens wailed above Rome's streets in a reminder of the war fears agitating this country which today has a Muslim population approaching one million.

One reason for the massive numbers was the strong support given by the Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, to the American line. But the Vatican's outspoken opposition to the war has sent tremors through Berlusconi's Forza Italia party.

In Berlin, the biggest peace demonstration seen by Germany for 20 years brought much of the capital to a standstill. More than 350,000 people – more than three times as many as organisers had expected – took part in an event which culminated in a mass rally at Berlin's victory column, near the Brandenburg Gate.

In France up to 400,000 people, many carrying posters denouncing US President Bush as a "warmonger" and chanting anti-American slogans, marched through Paris and 50 other cities. Gerald Lenoir, 41, of Berkley, California, said he came to Paris, where 100,000 marched, specifically to demonstrate alongside the French. "I am here to protest my government's aggression against Iraq," he said. "Iraq does not pose a security threat to the States and there are no links with al-Qa'ida."

As night fell in London, no fewer than 15 marches were underway in Brazil, nearly a million were demonstrating in Madrid, and an expected 100,000-plus were beginning to assemble in New York.

news.independent.co.uk

www.everyweek.com by Ari LeVaux Our man abroad reports from the World Social Forum

PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil—For over 20 years, the owners of the world have been meeting yearly in Davos, Switzerland, at an event called the World Economic Forum. Davos is where the theory of world domination by capital begins manifesting into practice.

For several years, small-scale “anti-Davos” meetings have been held around Europe. Three years ago, a group of activists had the idea of coalescing growing anti-Davos (as well as general anti-corporate-globalization) sentiment into a singular, world-scale forum, to be held at the same time as the World Economic Forum. Thus, the World Social Forum (WSF) was born.

The intention of the WSF is to bring together citizens from around the globe who are actively working for a better world, in arenas such as peace, environment, social work, culture, politics, agriculture, economics, etc. The idea is to create a space for networking, strategizing, sharing of stories, morale-boosting, and general collective searching for alternatives to the dominant, capital-centric paradigm.

I was among the 100,000 attendees from 156 countries at the WSF, held in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Although over 4,000 journalists were in attendance, pitifully few were from the U.S. I wrote this dispatch from Brazil in an attempt to include North Americans in the discussion, since we were excluded by our own corporate media. In light of the overwhelming disgust at U.S. policies evident in Porto Alegre, this exclusion is all the more unfortunate. The people of the U.S. need to know how the world is reacting to our policies.

Yet, despite the flag burning and anti-U.S. rhetoric, attendees did not confuse U.S. policy with the will of most Americans, especially those who made the trip to Porto Alegre. People know that Bush stole a very close election, and the few Americans who showed up at the WSF were eagerly embraced. And many Americans made presentations, including Noam Chomsky, who drew an audience of 15,000.

Other “left-wing rock stars” in attendance were Nelson Mandela, Vandana Shiva, Danny Glover, Aleida Guevara (daughter of Che), Eduardo Galeano, Naomi Klein, and Deepak Chopra. Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, made a surprise appearance, and announced that his embattled regime was part of the movement, affirming his resolve to fight the U.S. empire’s attempts to oust him from his majority-elected position.

While Chavez cast himself as a revolutionary, Brazil’s wildly popular new president-elect, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, aka “Lula,” made a speech in which he presented himself as a peacemaker, determined to end hunger and inequity in Brazil—without destabilizing the Brazilian economy. Lula also announced his imminent trip to Davos, and his intent to keep the discussion at the World Economic Forum focused on ways in which capital might serve people—not the other way around.

The speeches were inspiring, educational, and altogether valuable, but the real engines of the WSF are the workshops and activities organized by the various groups in attendance. These were a sort of civil laboratory, mixing up ideas, strategies, stories, processes, and discoveries from around the world of ideals.

The workshops were held at the Pontificia Universidade Catolica, the major university of Porto Alegre. It was pretty much the ideal college utopian scene. Imagine going to a school with course offerings like “The global water grab,” “Encounters with the truth,” “A feminist challenge to the market: the gift economy,” “Community food security in North America: building alternatives to the global food system in the belly of the beast,” “The transformational power of hip-hop,” “Prostitution and Globalization,” and “Medicinal plants of the Guarini Indians.”

Imagine a campus crowded with students from 156 countries, the symphony of languages filling the halls and stairwells, poking heads into different rooms, with hundreds of options to choose from at any given time. You can check out a class and if it doesn’t stoke you, get up and go to another one. If you arrive late, it’s probably because you got stuck behind a samba parade, or were entranced by a dance of neon-feather-decorated Indians from deep in the Amazon.

I attended a series of workshops on “Individualization, globalization, and civil society.” The workshops were spearheaded by the sustainable development organization GlobeNet 3 of Stuttgart, Germany, with contributions from Merkur of Sweden, and the New York Open Center. I was impressed by their process for running workshops, integrating their own material with comments and ideas from the group, always moving forward while integrating. When asked if Germans had a certain knack for this, one speaker explained:

“From Germany, we can look to the East and see the loss of freedom in the name of solidarity; we can look to the West and see the loss of solidarity in the name of freedom. This motivates us to search for a middle path. Also, we have this lingering national wound of the Holocaust, and a tremendous collective desire to become a nation that promotes peace and unity, to be a leader in international problem-solving.”

These folks definitely had a knack for finding middle ground. Middle ground between the individual and the collective; middle ground between politics, economics, and culture; middle ground between conflicting viewpoints arising in the workshops that were, upon closer inspection, not necessarily in conflict at all.

For me, the most spine-tingling moment of the whole event was when a group of people held hands in the middle of the packed Gigantinho soccer stadium. One read the following statement:

“We, Israeli and Palestinian pacifists, are determined to find peace, justice, and sovereignty for our people, and an end to the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories of 1967; a creation of an independent Palestinian state, side by side with Israel; Jerusalem as an open city, with independent capitals for both states. We call on the international community, in particular the UN, to intervene and arrange an end to this tragic situation and an end to the violence on both sides, by guiding the peace negotiations. Porto Alegre, January 27, 2003.”

Following this declaration, the pacifists on stage began passionately embracing each other, while the crowd roared and the band played John Lennon’s “Imagine.” The stadium rang with voices from all over the world singing along. I get chills, still, just writing about it.

The event was not without criticism from within. Canadian writer Naomi Klein diminished the WSF as a watered-down and mediocre “old paradigm” version of what it was supposed to be, asking: “How on earth did a gathering that was supposed to be a showcase for new grassroots movements become a celebration of men with a penchant for three-hour speeches about smashing the oligarchy?…For some, the hijacking of the forum is proof that the movements against corporate globalization are finally maturing and ‘getting serious.’ But is it really so mature, amidst the graveyard of failed, left political projects, to believe that change will come by casting your ballot for the latest charismatic leader, then crossing your fingers and hoping for the best? Get serious.”

I found Klein’s criticism, while grounded in some important truth, to be more of a downer than necessary. Her conclusion that “the theme of the WSF was big” is only true if you focus on the big events, rather than the 1,000-plus small and intimate workshops. And while she dismissed Chomsky as “another big man,” she failed to mention the small woman, Arundhati Roy (a writer, like Klein) who spoke after Chomsky, batting clean-up for the event. Her short, sweet, and powerful speech ended with these words:

“…No doubt Saddam is a ruthless dictator, and the people of Iraq would be better off without him. But then, the whole world would be better off without a certain George Bush. It’s clear that Bush is determined to go to war against Iraq, regardless of the facts and of public opinion. In its recruitment drive to build allies, the U.S. is prepared to invent facts. The charade of weapons inspectors is the U.S. government’s insulting, offensive obsession to some twisted form of international etiquette…like leaving the doggie door open for last minute allies, or maybe the UN, to crawl through. But for all intents and purposes, the new war against Iraq has begun.

“So what can we do? We can call on our mem-ory. We can learn from history. We can continue to build public opinion until it becomes a deafening roar. We can turn the war on Iraq into a fishbowl of the U.S. government and its excesses. We can expose Bush, Blair, and their allies as the cowardly baby killers, water polluters, and long distance bombers that they are. We can re-invent civil disobedience in a million different ways; a million ways of becoming a collective pain in the ass. When Bush says ‘You are either with us or with the terrorists,’ we can say ‘No thank you.’ We can let him know that the people of the world don’t have to choose between a malevolent Mickey Mouse and a mad mullah.

“Our strategy should not only be to confront empire, but to lay siege to it, to deprive it of oxygen, to shame it, to rock it with our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance and our ability to tell our own stories, stories that are different from the ones we are being brainwashed to believe. The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling.

“Remember this: We be many, and they be few. They need us more than we need them. Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. And if you listen carefully, you can hear her breathing.”

While criticism like Klein’s is important for keeping the “movement” on task and moving forward, and preventing it from falling into “old paradigm” patterns, I tend to agree with the assessment of “big men” like Lula, Chomsky, and Kofi Annan—as well as that of many big and small women—that the WSF is one of the most important events in contemporary history. Personally, it moved me from the fence, and made me a firm believer in the power and importance of activism.

indymedia.ie by Militante Sat, Feb 8 2003, 11:20am

Here in Colombia, the Green Berets are pursuing one of Bush's most important, and perilous, foreign policy initiatives. With all the talk about Iraq and North Korea, Washington has done its utmost best to keep Colombia quiet. Risks include losing North American lives in a conflict that does not have the same so-called ''popular support'' as the mystery hunt for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Washington has a big stake in Colombia...

Producers note:

Why is Colombia important for anti-capitalists worldwide? Because it is not only one of its oldest puppet states but also the source of most of the illegal drugs Americans consume and oil supplies (which is connected to Venezuelan oil) it depends. U.S. leadership will help the fascists in my country try to end the 39 year old civil war, Bush and his advisers hope. They believe that what they will teach them will make the most difference, since it is their war to win or lose. Unlike Vietnam, the anti-war movement has begun very early to its advantage. Radicals of all political standpoints must remain focused on all of Uncle Sam's hit lists. Not to do so will undermine the effectiveness of the world anti-capitalist movement. As our class enemies organize, so should we, as solidarity is paramount for the historical victory of oppressed of the world in this dangerous imperialist era.

Once again; deconstructing the Empire's lies from its very own propaganda corporate machine and giving right wingers, conservatives, and pro-capitalists, who are now attempting to undermine the effectivenes of indymedia with aging divide and conquer tactics, a severe headache.

Yours, Militante.

Warrior Class Why Special Forces are America's tool of choice in Colombia and around the globe

By Linda Robinson

Arauca, Colombia--The lumbering cargo plane carrying the heavily armed men touched down at dusk. Its propellers churning, the U.S. Air Force C-130 popped its rear cargo hatch, and two dozen Green Berets spilled out. Straining against the hot engine blast, the men quickly unloaded pallets of ammunition, food, and gear. Minutes later, the big plane vanished into a moonlit sky.

In President Bush's global war on terrorism, America's Special Forces are on the front lines. But as the president said in describing that war after the September 11 attacks, the front lines would not always be readily visible, with many battles being fought in the shadows, far away from the bright lights of the television cameras. Around the globe, from Afghanistan to the Philippines, U.S. Special Forces are either fighting, getting ready to fight, or teaching friendly forces the arcane and deadly arts of war. In Afghanistan, it was Special Forces working with militias like the Northern Alliance that sent the Taliban fleeing in panic into a warren of mountain redoubts. If war comes in Iraq, Special Forces will play a key role early on, lighting up targets for smart bombs in the desert outside Baghdad and attacking Iraqi missile launchers before they can maneuver to fire. The new missions mean more money--lots of it. This year, Bush plans to increase the budget of all the Pentagon's Special Operations forces by 20 percent, to $6 billion.

Here in Colombia, the Green Berets deposited by the C-130 are prosecuting one of Bush's most important, and perilous, foreign-policy initiatives. With all the talk about Iraq and North Korea, Colombia hasn't received a whole lot of attention. But it has been very much on Bush's mind. Last fall, he promised Colombia's new president that he would do all he could to help him fight the rebel groups that control nearly half his country. In November, U.S. News has learned, Bush signed a secret order, National Security Presidential Directive 18, that officially widened the role of the American military here to do just that. During the Clinton administration, the Pentagon provided only counternarcotics assistance. Now, under Bush's new order, U.S. military and intelligence agencies are helping Colombia hunt down and wipe out the rebel groups. The directive "says to me that [the armed groups] are in fact more than simply drug guys," says Gen. James Hill, chief of the U.S. Southern Command, which directs all Pentagon operations in Latin America. "They are terrorists. And [the NSPD] directs us to go after them, in support of the Colombians." Colombia, in other words, is the latest battleground in the war on terrorism.

It is a very different battleground, however, from Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf. In this steamy, oil-rich jungle province, the rebel groups control the local government, extorting hundreds of millions of dollars in oil royalties. They regularly bomb a strategic oil pipeline--a joint venture of Occidental Petroleum and Colombia. They produce cocaine and heroin, then sell the drugs for weapons. Guerrillas have kidnapped or killed more than 120 American businessmen, oil workers, activists, missionaries, and tourists. All three of Colombia's armed opposition groups are named on the U.S. State Department's official list of terrorist organizations. Some of their most violent leaders are under indictment in the United States.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld worries that the world's "ungoverned areas" can become sanctuaries for terrorists. That worry, in a nutshell, explains why the Green Berets are here. And anyone who wants to get an up-close look at how the war against terrorism is being fought in the shadows need look no further than Colombia. Despite its reputation for stealth and secrecy, the Army's Special Forces Command arranged exclusive access to its front-line operations in Colombia, allowing a U.S. News reporter to spend a month in the jungle with the Green Berets.