Noriega y la invasión de 1989

por Olmedo Beluche

(A propósito del fallecimiento del general Noriega, y la necesidad de una primera evaluación histórica de su persona, reeditamos estas notas del libro “Diez años de luchas políticas y sociales en Panamá (1980-1990)”)

El presidente de Estados Unidos, George Bush, justificó la invasión a Panamá sobre la base de una serie de pretextos cuya lógica es casi innecesario rebatir. Según Bush, los objetivos de la invasión del 20 de diciembre fueron: proteger la vida de los norteamericanos residentes en Panamá, atacar el narcotráfico sometiendo a Noriega a la justicia y “restaurar” el proceso democrático panameño.

El régimen militar jamás amenazó la vida y las propiedades de los norteamericanos y los grandes capitalistas, por el contrario, protegió hasta el final dichos intereses a costa del sacrificio de los trabajadores panameños. Hasta en el plano militar la política de las FDP fue la de evitar la confrontación, pese a las reiteradas provocaciones del ejército norteamericano. Es más, la inconsecuencia de la dirección norieguista llegó al extremo de que la mayoría absoluta de la alta oficialidad, con un par de honrosas excepciones, abandonó los cuarteles y huyó cobardemente apenas supo que venía la invasión, dejando a la tropa librada a su suerte.

Si el problema era que el general Noriega había convertido a Panamá en el paraíso del narcotráfico y el lavado de dinero, pues entonces hay que decir que estas actividades han continuado con fuerza después de la invasión. Transcurridos casi cuatro años de la invasión, el diario norteamericano Washington Post decía: “El Departamento de Estado reconoce que, aparte del propio Estados Unidos, la nuevamente democrática Panamá es el centro más activo de lavado de dinero cocainero del hemisferio”.

A nuestro juicio, se pueden resumir en tres los objetivos reales de la invasión norteamericana del 20 de diciembre de 1989: los relativos a la estabilización de la situación política y el tipo de régimen necesario para lograrlo; los económicos, que estaban muy relacionados con lo anterior, es decir, la aplicación del plan fondomonetarista; y los geopolíticos, el problema de las bases militares y su control sobre el Canal de Panamá.

Respecto al primero y segundo objetivos, es conveniente recordar lo que ya hemos señalado en los capítulos anteriores, el proceso de democratización que fuera pactado entre los militares panameños y el imperialismo norteamericano fue hecho añicos por las luchas de los trabajadores contra los planes de ajuste estructural. Muchas personas, al calor de las contradicciones surgidas entre la Casa Blanca y Manuel A. Noriega, a partir de 1987, olvidan que el plan de “democratización” fue pactado entre ambos, y que las contradicciones entre los militares panameños y los estrategas del Departamento de Estado sólo surgieron luego de 1985, cuando las luchas populares habían afectado la estabilidad política del régimen y a sus “ajustes”.

El plan de “reacción democrática” se desarrolló de común acuerdo entre los militares panameños y Estados Unidos en su primera fase (1978-84), y que en 1984 éste recibió un nuevo espaldarazo de ambos con el respaldo que otorgan al presidente Ardito Barletta. La conjunción de intereses se manifestó también en el apoyo que recibió el proyecto de militarización de la Guardia Nacional (Ley 20) por parte del Pentágono. En prueba de esto señalamos que la ayuda financiera a las fuerzas armadas panameñas por parte de Estados Unidos saltó de 0.3 y 0.4 millones de dólares en 1980 y 1981, a 5.4 en 1982, 5.5 en 1983, 13.5 millones en 1984 (!), 10.6 en 1985, 8.2 en 1986, para volver a caer en 1987 a 3.5 millones de dólares.

¿Cuándo y por qué se inician las contradicciones entre el gobierno norteamericano y la cúpula militar panameña? Ya hemos citado a prominentes personalidades burguesas, como Aquilino Boyd y Arnulfo Arias, que en julio de 1985 exigían (el primero a los militares y el segundo a Estados Unidos) cambios políticos para romper la parálisis en que se había sumido el gobierno de Barletta producto de las luchas populares contra el plan fondomonetarista.

Ese año (1985) para superar la crisis, la cadena se rompió por el eslabón más débil: los militares ofrecieron la “cabeza” (en el sentido político) de Barletta. Inmediatamente importantes sectores de la burguesía y la “oposición” dieron una tregua al nuevo gobierno de Eric Delvalle en un intento por mantener a flote el proyecto de “reacción democrática”.

Pero persistía un problema: debido al fraude electoral y a las luchas contra el plan de ajuste el pueblo panameño no había mordido el anzuelo, y no se comía el cuento de que vivía en un régimen democrático. Se sabía que los militares eran el poder real, y que eso no había cambiado. El asesinato de Spadafora había colocado dramáticamente este problema en el centro de la escena política, aunque no olvidemos que un año antes, en el programa de COCINA ya figuraba allí la exigencia de recortar el presupuesto de las FDP. La movilización popular amenazaba directamente al centro del poder político, las FDP, y colocaba la posibilidad de que una serie de luchas llevara a una debacle del régimen sin que existieran mecanismos de recambio.

Este es el origen de las contradicciones: un sector de la burguesía panameña, y el Departamento de Estado norteamericano, empezaron a exigir a los militares panameños (durante 1986) que adoptaran medidas concretas que hicieran creíble ante el pueblo que ellos se replegaban de la actividad política cediendo el poder a los civiles, subordinándose al presidente de la República, etc. Había que establecer un calendario de “democratización”, en el que la fecha clave era el retiro o jubilación del General Manuel A. Noriega, quien a los ojos de todo el mundo era el “hombre fuerte” de Panamá. Si esto no se hacía, no había manera de darle legitimidad al gobierno y al régimen, pues las masas panameñas no se tragarían el cuento de la “democracia”.

No olvidemos que el objetivo de la reacción democrática es el de crear un régimen presidencialista, con un rejuego de partidos políticos en el parlamento para que puedan canalizar el descontento popular hacia la vía electoral. De esta manera, frente a las luchas obreras y populares se crean mecanismos de intermediación y contención que los regímenes militares no tienen.

Mientras que para la estrategia imperialista y la oposición burguesa se trataba de realizar a cabalidad la institucionalización democrática, lo que implicaba no sólo elecciones, sino la posibilidad de que la ADOC ganara, y que el mando de las FDP fuera impersonal, llevado por funcionarios militares sometidos a un acuerdo nacional que limitaba su intervención en aparato estatal, etc; para el régimen militar y sus acólitos se trataba de ejecutar una “democratización” aparente, pero que jamás cuestionara su papel de árbitro supremo, ni su control del aparato estatal.

La resolución de la crisis se complicó hasta hacerse imposible un acuerdo gracias a las particularidades históricas panameñas, en las que el problema nacional y la presencia norteamericana determinan decisivamente los acontecimientos políticos. De manera que, una crisis que en otro país latinoamericano probablemente se habría resuelto en un tiempo menor, con la imposición por parte del imperialismo norteamericano y sus aliados internos de sus designios, en Panamá se prolongó por dos años.

Debido al arraigado sentimiento antimperialista de importantes sectores del pueblo panameño frente a la permanente intromisión norteamericana en nuestros asuntos, una parte notable del movimiento obrero cesó sus luchas contra el régimen y su plan económico conforme aumentaban las presiones norteamericanas. Es más, parte importante de la clase obrera y las capas medias de la sociedad, apoyó activamente a Noriega porque lo veían como la cabeza de la lucha nacionalista de nuestro pueblo. Por supuesto, este hecho no está en contradicción con el apoyo de masas recibido por la Cruzada Civilista, especialmente en la clase media. Porque, aunque minoritarios con relación a los civilistas, no se puede desconocer que también el nacionalismo levantado por el régimen militar tuvo apoyo en miles de activistas.

Esta base social, activa o pasiva, fue la que permitió al régimen militar panameño sobrevivir dos años de aguda crisis política, sanciones económicas y presiones norteamericanas. A la base social interna, hay que sumar el respaldo internacional por la causa panameña frente al imperialismo norteamericano, la cual impidió siempre a la OEA votar una resolución de condena al régimen panameño, sin que, por otro lado, tuviera que condenar la intromisión extranjera.

Noriega, sin ser un consecuente antimperialista ni nacionalista, se apoyó en estas contradicciones reales existentes entre Panamá y Estados Unidos, para sobrevivir convirtiéndose en vocero de la causa nacionalista panameña.

El choque entre los dos proyectos políticos y el conjunto de la crisis se centró durante dos años en un sólo punto: el retiro de Noriega. Conforme la crisis política se fue agudizando este punto fue concentrando todos los problemas. Agobiado por las presiones, el General Noriega estuvo dispuesto a ceder el gobierno civil a Guillermo Endara a principios de 1989 (por eso las elecciones fueron “las más limpias de la historia”, hasta el día de la elección), e inclusive después (entre junio y agosto) se propuso un “gobierno compartido” encabezado por Endara. Lo único que no aceptaba Noriega era que se le obligara a renunciar, menos aún si Estados Unidos no retiraba la acusación por narcotráfico, ni que se desmantelara la institución.

Pero ni la ADOC ni el Departamento de Estado yanqui podían aceptar a Noriega, pues su sola presencia indicaba una continuidad del régimen y de la crisis. A la vez que ellos necesitaban liquidar la autonomía relativa alcanzada por los militares panameños, para reorganizar la institución militar de acuerdo al nuevo régimen político presidencialista que se intentaba imponer.

Estas diferencias no eran meros matices, sino que tras ellas subyacía el problema concreto acerca de qué fracción detentaría el poder y sus privilegios. El triunfo de un sector eliminaba al otro. Seguramente esto es lo que quería señalar Solís Palma cuando decía que ceder a Noriega significaba el “comienzo del fin”. Era el final de un régimen político, y de los funcionarios civiles y militares que lo encarnaban. Más que eso, era el final del régimen político con mayor autonomía (con respecto a Estados Unidos) de la historia panameña, el cual logró crear también una élite de funcionarios y tecnócratas con relativa independencia de lo que se ha dado en llamar la “sociedad civil”.

Estas contradicciones a lo interno de la clase dominante panameña tenían que ser más agudas cuando se estaba a las puertas de la última década del siglo, momento en que, de acuerdo a los Tratados del Canal, Torrijos – Carter, debían revertir valiosas instalaciones y terrenos, así como el canal mismo, a la soberanía y economía panameñas. La fracción de la burguesía que maneje los destinos políticos del país será, sin duda, la mayor beneficiaria de la privatización de los “bienes revertidos”, evaluados en unos 30,000 millones de dólares.

¿Quería el imperialismo norteamericano la destrucción del aparato de las FDP por ser un ente “nacionalista”, tal y como lo pintan los defensores del ex régimen militar? Definitivamente que no. Al menos durante la mayor parte de la crisis ésta no fue la intención del gobierno norteamericano. Además de que el comportamiento de las FDP, hasta principios de 1987 (y aún después), no representaba una amenaza para los intereses norteamericanos, más bien actuaban como aliadas ¿Por qué destruir un aparato cuidadosamente construido por el propio Comando Sur? Las declaraciones de los voceros de la Casa Blanca y las resoluciones del Senado llegan a apelar reiteradamente a favor de que Noriega ponga la fecha de su retiro como una medida de salvar a las FDP.

La invasión a Panamá y la destrucción de las FDP quedó colocada por la realidad recién a mediados de 1989, cuando la crisis panameña llegó a un punto sin salida, y cuando ésta se conjugó con un plan del ejército norteamericano para recuperar su prestigio e intentar superar el “síndrome de Vietnam” realizando acciones militares directas en otros países.

Según el periodista norteamericano Bob Woodward, la administración del presidente George Bush empezó a planear seriamente la invasión en mayo de 1989, después de la anulación de las elecciones. Pero todavía en el mes de julio de ese año el general Frederick Woerner, jefe del Comando Sur, se oponía a la acción armada por lo que fue suplantado por el general Maxwell Thurman. Ya en octubre de 1989 la decisión de invadir estaba tomada, y simplemente se afinaban los detalles. Por eso, Estados Unidos no apoyó al mayor Moisés Giroldi y los golpistas del 3 de octubre.

¿Se oponía de tal manera el régimen militar panameño a legalizar la permanencia de sus bases militares más allá del año 2,000, de tal manera que necesitaba Estados Unidos invadir y destruir a las FDP? ¡Definitivamente no! Hasta 1987 la relación entre el Pentágono y el régimen militar fue de colaboración, por lo cual, si fuera el caso, se habría podido renegociar la permanencia de las bases militares sin que eso significara un choque violento.

Todavía después, en la fase más aguda de la crisis, en agosto de 1989, el propio general Noriega dijo, “si los norteamericanos quieren las bases, que vayan y las pidan, pero que no hagan como el hombre que quiere enamorar a una mujer y la viola”. Esta declaración dice mucho del “nacionalismo” de Noriega y su régimen.

¿Necesita Estados Unidos renegociar la permanencia de sus bases militares en Panamá más allá del año 2,000? Definitivamente sí. Cuando el presidente James Carter firmó el Tratado del Canal, Estados Unidos pasaba por un momento altamente crítico (Watergate, pérdida de la guerra de Vietnam, etc).

En una circunstancia como esa Norteamérica accedió a ponerle una fecha final para la presencia militar en Panamá, reservándose el derecho de intervención a perpetuidad. Pero a medida que esa potencia se ha recuperado del “síndrome de Vietnam”, se ha replanteado el problema de su control sobre zonas estratégicas del mundo, y Panamá es una de ellas. Por eso, el Senado y grupos asesores en política exterior, como el llamado Grupo de Santa Fe (que asesoró los gobiernos de Reagan y Bush), han planteado con claridad el objetivo de obtener un nuevo acuerdo sobre las bases militares en nuestro país.

No se trataba de que las FDP tuvieran una postura recalcitrantemente nacionalista, pero si era cierto que Estados Unidos necesitaba resolver la crisis política panameña también para que un régimen estable, y sumiso, pueda renegociar un acuerdo de bases. Esta fue una situación parecida a lo que sucedía a fines de los años 60, la crisis política se había convertido en obstáculo para la incluso renegociación del tratado sobre el Canal de Panamá. Además, el gobierno norteamericano debía promover una reorganización de las fuerzas armadas panameñas, tratando de acabar con los elementos nacionalistas y torrijistas que habían crecido a lo interno y que podrían ser reacios a una relación de sometimiento hacia el Comando Sur. Esto se ha venido haciendo desde la invasión.

Lo que no es cierto es la versión propagandística lanzada por los acólitos del régimen militar, de que era completamente antagónica la existencia de las FDP y las tropas norteamericanas. Por el contrario, el Pentágono promovió en sus inicios el desarrollo de la Guardia Nacional, pues necesitaba de un cuerpo de seguridad panameño que les ayude a mantener el control sobre el Canal, sin que sus tropas tengan que intervenir constantemente.

(Agregamos ahora, en 2017: ese acuerdo de bases fue el proyecto de CMA que intentaron bajo el gobierno del PRD de Ernesto Pérez Balladares y que fracasó rechazado por el pueblo panameño. Pero bajo el gobierno de Mireya Moscoso en adelante los gobiernos han firmado con Estados Unidos acuerdos de seguridad que hacen el papel del acuerdo de bases. Como el llamado Acuerdo Salas-Becker, firmado en 1991, que entrega la soberanía sobre el espacio aéreo y el mar territorial a estados Unidos con la excusa de combatir el narcotráfico).

~ ~ ~

Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web

Speech about the New Orleans Confederate monuments

by Mayor Mitch Landrieu

The soul of our beloved City is deeply rooted in a history that has evolved over thousands of years; rooted in a diverse people who have been here together every step of the way — for both good and for ill.

It is a history that holds in its heart the stories of Native Americans: the Choctaw, Houma Nation, the Chitimacha. Of Hernando de Soto, Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, the Acadians, the Islenos, the enslaved people from Senegambia, Free People of Color, the Haitians, the Germans, both the empires of France and Spain. The Italians, the Irish, the Cubans, the south and central Americans, the Vietnamese and so many more.

You see: New Orleans is truly a city of many nations, a melting pot, a bubbling cauldron of many cultures.

There is no other place quite like it in the world that so eloquently exemplifies the uniquely American motto: e pluribus unum — out of many we are one.

But there are also other truths about our city that we must confront. New Orleans was America’s largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were brought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of forced labor of misery of rape, of torture.

America was the place where nearly 4,000 of our fellow citizens were lynched, 540 alone in Louisiana; where the courts enshrined ‘separate but equal’; where Freedom riders coming to New Orleans were beaten to a bloody pulp.

So when people say to me that the monuments in question are history, well what I just described is real history as well, and it is the searing truth.

And it immediately begs the questions: why there are no slave ship monuments, no prominent markers on public land to remember the lynchings or the slave blocks; nothing to remember this long chapter of our lives; the pain, the sacrifice, the shame … all of it happening on the soil of New Orleans.

So for those self-appointed defenders of history and the monuments, they are eerily silent on what amounts to this historical malfeasance, a lie by omission.

There is a difference between remembrance of history and reverence of it. For America and New Orleans, it has been a long, winding road, marked by great tragedy and great triumph. But we cannot be afraid of our truth.

As President George W. Bush said at the dedication ceremony for the National Museum of African American History & Culture, “A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.”

So today I want to speak about why we chose to remove these four monuments to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, but also how and why this process can move us towards healing and understanding of each other.

So, let’s start with the facts.

The historic record is clear: the Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This ‘cult’ had one goal — through monuments and through other means — to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity.

First erected over 166 years after the founding of our city and 19 years after the end of the Civil War, the monuments that we took down were meant to rebrand the history of our city and the ideals of a defeated Confederacy.

It is self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America, They fought against it. They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots.

These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for.

After the Civil War, these statues were a part of that terrorism as much as a burning cross on someone’s lawn; they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city.

Should you have further doubt about the true goals of the Confederacy, in the very weeks before the war broke out, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy.

He said in his now famous ‘Cornerstone speech’ that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

Now, with these shocking words still ringing in your ears, I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip on a false narrative of our history that I think weakens us and make straight a wrong turn we made many years ago so we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better city and more perfect union.

Last year, President Barack Obama echoed these sentiments about the need to contextualize and remember all of our history. He recalled a piece of stone, a slave auction block engraved with a marker commemorating a single moment in 1830 when Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay stood and spoke from it.

President Obama said, “Consider what this artifact tells us about history … on a stone where day after day for years, men and women … bound and bought and sold and bid like cattle on a stone worn down by the tragedy of over a thousand bare feet. For a long time the only thing we considered important, the singular thing we once chose to commemorate as history with a plaque were the unmemorable speeches of two powerful men.”

A piece of stone — one stone. Both stories were history. One story told. One story forgotten or maybe even purposefully ignored.

As clear as it is for me today … for a long time, even though I grew up in one of New Orleans’ most diverse neighborhoods, even with my family’s long proud history of fighting for civil rights … I must have passed by those monuments a million times without giving them a second thought.

So I am not judging anybody, I am not judging people. We all take our own journey on race. I just hope people listen like I did when my dear friend Wynton Marsalis helped me see the truth. He asked me to think about all the people who have left New Orleans because of our exclusionary attitudes.

Another friend asked me to consider these four monuments from the perspective of an African American mother or father trying to explain to their fifth grade daughter who Robert E. Lee is and why he stands atop of our beautiful city. Can you do it?

Can you look into that young girl’s eyes and convince her that Robert E. Lee is there to encourage her? Do you think she will feel inspired and hopeful by that story? Do these monuments help her see a future with limitless potential? Have you ever thought that if her potential is limited, yours and mine are too?

We all know the answer to these very simple questions.

When you look into this child’s eyes is the moment when the searing truth comes into focus for us. This is the moment when we know what is right and what we must do. We can’t walk away from this truth.

And I knew that taking down the monuments was going to be tough, but you elected me to do the right thing, not the easy thing and this is what that looks like. So relocating these Confederate monuments is not about taking something away from someone else. This is not about politics, this is not about blame or retaliation. This is not a naïve quest to solve all our problems at once.

This is, however, about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile and, most importantly, choose a better future for ourselves, making straight what has been crooked and making right what was wrong.

Otherwise, we will continue to pay a price with discord, with division, and yes, with violence.
Advertisement

To literally put the confederacy on a pedestal in our most prominent places of honor is an inaccurate recitation of our full past, it is an affront to our present, and it is a bad prescription for our future.

History cannot be changed. It cannot be moved like a statue. What is done is done. The Civil War is over, and the Confederacy lost and we are better for it. Surely we are far enough removed from this dark time to acknowledge that the cause of the Confederacy was wrong.

And in the second decade of the 21st century, asking African Americans — or anyone else — to drive by property that they own; occupied by reverential statues of men who fought to destroy the country and deny that person’s humanity seems perverse and absurd.

Centuries-old wounds are still raw because they never healed right in the first place.

Here is the essential truth: we are better together than we are apart. Indivisibility is our essence. Isn’t this the gift that the people of New Orleans have given to the world?

We radiate beauty and grace in our food, in our music, in our architecture, in our joy of life, in our celebration of death; in everything that we do. We gave the world this funky thing called jazz; the most uniquely American art form that is developed across the ages from different cultures.

Think about second lines, think about Mardi Gras, think about muffaletta, think about the Saints, gumbo, red beans and rice. By God, just think. All we hold dear is created by throwing everything in the pot; creating, producing something better; everything a product of our historic diversity.

We are proof that out of many we are one — and better for it! Out of many we are one — and we really do love it!

And yet, we still seem to find so many excuses for not doing the right thing. Again, remember President Bush’s words, “A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.”

We forget, we deny how much we really depend on each other, how much we need each other. We justify our silence and inaction by manufacturing noble causes that marinate in historical denial. We still find a way to say “wait, not so fast.”

But like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “wait has almost always meant never.”

We can’t wait any longer. We need to change. And we need to change now. No more waiting. This is not just about statues, this is about our attitudes and behavior as well. If we take these statues down and don’t change to become a more open and inclusive society this would have all been in vain.

While some have driven by these monuments every day and either revered their beauty or failed to see them at all, many of our neighbors and fellow Americans see them very clearly. Many are painfully aware of the long shadows their presence casts, not only literally but figuratively. And they clearly receive the message that the Confederacy and the cult of the lost cause intended to deliver.

Earlier this week, as the cult of the lost cause statue of P.G.T Beauregard came down, world renowned musician Terence Blanchard stood watch, his wife Robin and their two beautiful daughters at their side.

Terence went to a high school on the edge of City Park named after one of America’s greatest heroes and patriots, John F. Kennedy. But to get there he had to pass by this monument to a man who fought to deny him his humanity.

He said, “I’ve never looked at them as a source of pride … it’s always made me feel as if they were put there by people who don’t respect us. This is something I never thought I’d see in my lifetime. It’s a sign that the world is changing.”

Yes, Terence, it is, and it is long overdue.

Now is the time to send a new message to the next generation of New Orleanians who can follow in Terence and Robin’s remarkable footsteps.

A message about the future, about the next 300 years and beyond; let us not miss this opportunity New Orleans and let us help the rest of the country do the same. Because now is the time for choosing. Now is the time to actually make this the City we always should have been, had we gotten it right in the first place.

We should stop for a moment and ask ourselves — at this point in our history, after Katrina, after Rita, after Ike, after Gustav, after the national recession, after the BP oil catastrophe and after the tornado — if presented with the opportunity to build monuments that told our story or to curate these particular spaces … would these monuments be what we want the world to see? Is this really our story?

We have not erased history; we are becoming part of the city’s history by righting the wrong image these monuments represent and crafting a better, more complete future for all our children and for future generations.

And unlike when these Confederate monuments were first erected as symbols of white supremacy, we now have a chance to create not only new symbols, but to do it together, as one people.

In our blessed land we all come to the table of democracy as equals.

We have to reaffirm our commitment to a future where each citizen is guaranteed the uniquely American gifts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That is what really makes America great and today it is more important than ever to hold fast to these values and together say a self-evident truth that out of many we are one. That is why today we reclaim these spaces for the United States of America.

Because we are one nation, not two; indivisible with liberty and justice for all, not some. We all are part of one nation, all pledging allegiance to one flag, the flag of the United States of America. And New Orleanians are in, all of the way.

It is in this union and in this truth that real patriotism is rooted and flourishes.

Instead of revering a 4-year brief historical aberration that was called the Confederacy we can celebrate all 300 years of our rich, diverse history as a place named New Orleans and set the tone for the next 300 years.

After decades of public debate, of anger, of anxiety, of anticipation, of humiliation and of frustration. After public hearings and approvals from three separate community led commissions. After two robust public hearings and a 6-1 vote by the duly elected New Orleans City Council. After review by 13 different federal and state judges. The full weight of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government has been brought to bear and the monuments in accordance with the law have been removed.

So now is the time to come together and heal and focus on our larger task. Not only building new symbols, but making this city a beautiful manifestation of what is possible and what we as a people can become.

Let us remember what the once exiled, imprisoned and now universally loved Nelson Mandela and what he said after the fall of apartheid. “If the pain has often been unbearable and the revelations shocking to all of us, it is because they indeed bring us the beginnings of a common understanding of what happened and a steady restoration of the nation’s humanity.”

So before we part let us again state the truth clearly.

The Confederacy was on the wrong side of history and humanity. It sought to tear apart our nation and subjugate our fellow Americans to slavery. This is the history we should never forget and one that we should never again put on a pedestal to be revered.

As a community, we must recognize the significance of removing New Orleans’ Confederate monuments. It is our acknowledgment that now is the time to take stock of, and then move past, a painful part of our history. Anything less would render generations of courageous struggle and soul-searching a truly lost cause.

Anything less would fall short of the immortal words of our greatest President Abraham Lincoln, who with an open heart and clarity of purpose calls on us today to unite as one people when he said:

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to do all which may achieve and cherish: a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.

The Visitation

by Uri Avnery — Gush Shalom

Thank God for Oren Hazan.

Without him, this would have been an exceedingly dull visit.

Israel’s cabinet ministers were lined up in the blazing sun at the foot of the airplane stairs for the official reception of President Donald Trump.

It was very hot, there was no shade, dark suits for men were obligatory. Just awful.

Many cabinet ministers did not want to attend. The Prime Minister had to compel them with dire threats.

But lo and behold, when Trump descended from the presidential plane, there was an endless line of receivers. Not only all the cabinet ministers were lined up, but also a large number of infiltrators. It was too late to remove them.

The most prominent among them was Oren Hazan. A simple first-term Member of the Knesset, with an acknowledged gift for vulgarity, he infiltrated the row of cabinet ministers. When President Trump approached his outstretched hand, Hazan produced his cellphone and started to take pictures of himself with the President, who, taken by surprise, cooperated sheepishly.

Within seconds, the photo was all over the world and on many websites. It seems to have made little impression in America itself. But Hazan was proud. It boosted his image even more than the recent court case, where it was found that there was no proof that he provided prostitutes to clients of his casino in Bulgaria.

It was as if somebody was out to prove my contention of last week, that the present Knesset was full of “parliamentary riffraff”. Oren Hazan fits that description admirably.

There were two Donald Trumps this week. One of them was touring the Middle East, being feted everywhere. The second was in Washington, where he was battered from all sides, denounced for incompetence and even threatened with impeachment in the future.

Against the background of his troubles at home, Trump’s Arabian Nights were fantastic.

His first stop was Saudi Arabia. The desert kingdom put forward its best face. The royal family, consisting of a few hundred princes (princesses do not count) looked like the realization of all of Trump’s secret dreams. He was received like a gift from Allah. Even Melania, demure and silent as usual, was allowed to be present (and that in a kingdom in which women are not allowed to drive a car.)

As usual among eastern potentates, gifts were exchanged. The gift for Trump was a 110 billion arms deal that will provide jobs for multitudes of American workers, as well as investment in American enterprises.

After his short stay, including a meeting with a large group of Arab rulers, Trump came away with tremendous enthusiasm for everything Arab.

After a two hour flight, he was in a completely different world: Israel.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have no common border. Though at one point — by the Gulf of Aqaba — only a few miles of Jordanian territory separate them, the two states could just as well exist on different planets.

Contrary to the romance of the desert kingdom, where hunting hawks are prized, horses are admired and women are kept behind closed doors, Israel is a very prosaic place. Trump quickly learned just how prosaic.

Before the airport ceremony, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had a hard time convincing his cabinet to come to the airport at all. It was a very warm day, Ben Gurion airport is an especially hot place, and wearing a heavy, dark business suit is a nightmare for Israelis.

But in the end, the honor of attending was overwhelming. Not only did all cabinet ministers attend, but quite a number of ordinary (in both senses) parliamentarians and the like infiltrated the receiving line, which must have looked endless to the esteemed guest. Hazan was just one of many, though the most colorful.

They did not just want to shake hands. Every one of them had something very important to convey. So poor Donald had to listen politely to each and every one of them reciting his historic remark, mostly about the sanctity of eternal Jerusalem.

The Minister of Police had an urgent news item for Trump: there had just been a terror attack in Tel Aviv. It appeared later, that it was an ordinary road traffic accident. Well, a police minister cannot always be well informed.

(My humble advice: on such hot days, please erect an air-conditioned tent at the airport.)

A word about The Ladies.

I presume that in her marriage contract, Melania Trump undertook to be graceful and silent on such occasions. Along the lines: look beautiful and shut up.

So she stands aloof, slim, statuesque, her profile to the cameras.

Sarah Netanyahu is the very opposite. She is not quite as sleek as Melania, and she certainly does not shut up. On the contrary, she does not stop talking. She seems to have a compulsive desire to be the center of attention in every scene.

When a microphone succeeded in capturing a snatch of her small talk, it was about painting the walls of the official residence in anticipation of this visit. Not very highbrow.

I don’t think that it is wise for Sarah’le to stand next to an international beauty queen like Melania. (Just a thought.)

It all reminded me of a book I read ages go. The first British colonial District Officer in Jerusalem, almost a hundred years ago, wrote his memoirs.

The British entered Palestine and soon issued the Balfour Declaration, which promised the Jews a national home in in the country. Even if the Declaration was a pretext for grabbing Palestine for the British Empire, the British were indeed imbued with a love for this country. They were also quite friendly to the Jews.

Not for long. The colonial officers came, met Jews and Arabs, and fell in love with the Arabs. Hosting guests is a part of Arab culture, a long-standing tradition. The British loved the Arab aristocracy.

They were much less enamored with the Zionist functionaries, mostly from Eastern Europe, who never ceased to demand and complain. They talked too much. They argued. No beautiful horses. No hawks. No noble manners.

By the end of British rule, very few British administrators were ardent Jew-lovers.

As for the political content of Trump’s visit, it was a contest of lies. Trump is a good liar. But no match for Netanyahu.

Trump spoke endlessly about Peace. Being quite ignorant of the issues, he may even have meant it. At least he put the word back on the table, after Israelis of almost all shades had erased it from their vocabulary. Israelis, even peaceniks, prefer now to speak of “separation” (which, to my mind, is opposed to the spirit of peace.)

Netanyahu loves peace, but there are things he loves more — annexation, for example. And settlements.

In one of his addresses, a sentence was hidden that, it seems, nobody noticed but me. He said that “security” in the country — meaning the right to use armed force from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River — will be exclusively in the hands of Israel. This, in simple words, means an eternal occupation, reducing the Palestinian entity to some kind of Bantustan.

Trump did not appear to notice. How could he be expected to?

Peace is not just a word. It is a political situation. Sometimes it is also a state of mind.

Trump came to Israel with the impression that the Saudi princes had just offered him a deal — Israel will free Palestine, Sunni Arabs and Israelis will become one happy family, they will fight together against bad old Shiite Iran. Wonderful.

Only Netanyahu does not dream of freeing Palestine. He does not really give a damn about far-away Iran. He wants to hold on to East Jerusalem, to the West Bank and, indirectly, to the Gaza Strip.

So Trump went home, happy and satisfied. And in a few days, all of this will be forgotten.

And we will have to solve our problems ourselves.

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.