Putting things back together to end a brief interregnum.
Democrats Abroad are looking for campaigners and board members
by Eric Jackson
Since late March Democrats Abroad has been kind of a mess. Bernie Sanders won 71 percent of the primary vote here and the chair at that time, Hillary Clinton supporter Michael Long, quit in a huff. The vice chair, who under the chapter’s bylaws automatically becomes chair when the that position becomes vacant, didn’t want the post. The bylaws say that, different from all other offices, when the vice chair’s post becomes vacant it must be filled an election rather than an appointment.
Nothwithstanding the bylaws and without consulting the membership or the full board — which already had vacancies and a chronic no-show — the vice chair became chair, purported to appoint secretary Sean Hammerle as vice chair, then she resigned to allow him to become chair, after which he purported to reappoint her as vice chair. This reporter, who was a board member at large, objected to this but Hillary Clinton supporter Hammerle was recognized as chair by folks higher up in Democrats Abroad as legitimate. The upshot of this was that for the voting at the global level in a May Democrats Abroad convention in Berlin, all of Panama’s votes went to Hillary Clinton supporters notwithstanding the primary result.
Hammerle moved to replace the old elected board of directors that had meetings that were open to the membership with a secret “executive committee” composed entirely of his appointees, drawn mainly from members of the American Society of Panama. He moved to expel this reporter from the board in a scheduled “membership meeting” at a location to be kept secret. But Hammerle is not who and what he said that he was, and a rather strident political battle was joined. Within a few days he and his “executive committee” resigned.
That left the board of directors without a quorum and implicitly dissolved pending the election of a new board. This reporter has stayed on as the caretaker of the Democrats Abroad Panama Facebook pages and a transition team of former vice chair Phil Edmonston, former chair Ramona Rhoades, informal planning committee host Abby Eden and this reporter set out to pick up the pieces. The transition team called for a June 11 membership meeting to choose a nominating committee, which will consider applications from those who would want to be on an entirely new board of directors to be chosen at a July 23 membership meeting and come up with a suggested slate of officers and board members. The people who show up at the July 23 meeting can accept the slate or part of it, or elect other people. Under the bylaws nominations from the floor are acceptable.
The June 11 meeting was held at the Balboa Yacht Club and there was online participation but with an only partially functioning WebX service provided by the Democrats Abroad Americas Region. The site for the July 23 meeting has yet to be determined, and the online format is also up in the air — but under discussion are a Balboa Union Church venue and a Skype connection for those participating online. See the Democrats Abroad Panama party or open group Facebook pages for this information.
Meanwhile the nominating committee, chaired by Phil Edmonston, has already taken several names of folks willing to serve on the new board and is taking more. If you are interested in serving on the Democrats Abroad Panama board of directors, send an email to lemonaid@earthlink.net by July 16.
This board, to take office on July 23, will be at the center of the 2016 local Democratic campaign, supporting the party ticket from the presidential nominee down to the candidates for the lowest level local offices on the ticket.
US citizens voting from abroad vote by absentee ballot in the place where they last resided in the United States, or in the case of young voters who never lived in the USA, the last place in the States where a parent who is a US citizen lived. (Quick rule of thumb — will you be 18 by election day and do you have a US passport? You are eligible to vote.) Voter information and registration, including an effort to get more of the US-Panamanian dual citizens to exercise their voting rights as Americans, will be an immediately important part of local Democrats’ work.
Perhaps there will be one or more debates with local Republicans. Very likely Democrats will gather to watch any televised debates between the US presidential nominees. There will probably be events, presentations and literature to explain the Democrats’ stands on issues facing the United States, some of these things in Spanish as well as English.
The old board that was left without a quorum and thus dissolved was originally elected for a two-year term early in 2015. The board elected on July 23 will serve until regular new elections to be held next year, probably in February. It’s essentially the local Democrats’ 2016 campaign steering committee.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
The roughest of the rough stuff that we have seen over the past several years of indigenous protests has yet to return, but at a June 7 anti-dam demonstration in Santiago this protester did get conked over the head, allegedly by a police officer. Photo by M-10.
No agreement on Barro Blanco
by Eric Jackson
In August of last year, under pressures from the national government that was making arguments about how an uncompleted Barro Blanco Dam would be a danger to downstream communities, General Cacique Silvia Carrera of the Ngabe-Bugle Comarca signed an agreement that would let the mostly done at the time dam construction be finished. The assurance given at the time was that it would not go into operation without further approval. But this past May 24 the floodgates were closed and the reservoir began to fill, according to the Varela administration for “tests.”
Carrera, whose popularity with her constituents was definitively destroyed by last August’s concession, called for a meeting with the government and this was held at the Catholic Church’s Centro Misionero Jesus Obrero in Tole on June 8. The government commission was led by Vice President Isabel Saint Malo de Alvarado, while Carrera led a delegation of public officials from the comarca.
Carrera noted that the agreement she signed last year did not include closing the floodgates. She said that she’s not disposed to sign another agreement to retroactively allow this. She demanded that the government to stop the test before the flood waters destroy homes and an ancient petroglyph that the Mama Tatda Church, an important faith among the Ngable population, considers sacred. The government delegation flatly rejected these demands, compliance with which the indigenous side set as a precondition for further talks.
The government offered to expel the dam’s promoter, a company called GENISA, from the project and find a new owner, a proposal that the indigenous side rejected. GENISA is a problem for both sides. Precisely who owns how much of it is unclear because of Panama’s corporate secrecy laws, but Hondurans who are embroiled in their country’s severe corruption scandals are among its visible faces and it is suspected that when GENISA bought the dam concession from relatives of fugitive former President Ricardo Martinelli that the sellers retained a stake in the project. Financing the dam are the German DEG bank, the Dutch FMO bank and the Central American Economic Integration Bank. GENISA and its lawyers filed fraudulent environmental statements at the project’s outset, understating the extent of the flooding, alleging that none of the comarca would be affected and certifying that there were no sites of cultural importance that would be affected. There has never been any legal consequence for these false statements, either for the company or its lawyers, but nevertheless the Varela administration would like to be rid of GENISA without getting into litigation with the banks. But the indigenous side is against the dam under whatever ownership and did not accept the government’s offer as anything of positive substance for them.
With Carrera now derided as a sellout by anti-dam activists and unable to budge the government in any way that’s acceptable to her constituents, the anti-dam forces have been reorganizing for further resistance. The past protests were led by the April 10th Movement (M-10), a secular organization that identifies with the international pan-indigenous movement that’s found throughout the Americas and has many non-indigenous friends. But of rising importance has been the September 22nd Movement (M-22), which is based in the Mama Tatda Church, a faith that has traditionally remained aloof from the non-Ngabe world. M-10 and M-22 have now merged.
Meanwhile riot police are in control of the area to be affected. As the floodgates closed they rounded up dozens of people, including whole families, initially holding them prisoner in a Catholic Church. Ecumenical harmony is strained in the comarca to the point where the Catholic hierarchy’s mediation may no longer be possible. The government is downplaying the religious provocation, arguing that the petroglyph will not be destroyed but will just be underwater.
After six hours of impasses the talks broke off. There are no plans for further discussions between national and comarca authorities. But outside of the official sphere, the anti-dam movements are not conceding that the argument is over.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
EEUU es un país con 300 millones de habitantes, con la economía más grande del mundo, moviliza las fuerzas armadas más poderosas sobre la tierra y tiene la ‘máquina’ propagandística-cultural más rica en la historia de la humanidad. Para manejar este enorme poderío ha tejido a lo largo de décadas, más de dos siglos, un aparato político capaz de enfrentar retos y movilizar millones de personas. El sofisticado engranaje es la llamada democracia.
El núcleo central de este complejo sistema lo controla un conjunto de instituciones e individuos que en EEUU es identificado como el “establishment”. Son los guardianes del orden establecido y son los responsables de mantener la hegemonía sobre los diferentes sectores del país de tal manera que los cambios no perjudiquen los intereses creados. Cada cuatro años convocan elecciones para elegir líderes políticos, incluyendo al presidente de EEUU.
El proceso es supervisado por el establishment para garantizar que no se produzcan sorpresas y no sean elegidos candidatos que se salgan de las normas aceptadas. Entre las normas, la más importante es garantizar la reproducción del sistema que protege los resortes económicos de propiedad y represión (violencia). Para lograr este fin, el establishment cuenta con dos partidos políticos: uno más conservador (Republicano) y el otro más liberal (Demócrata).
En la campaña electoral de 2016 salió a relucir dentro del Partido Republicano una masa electoral que respaldó al candidato menos comprometido con el orden tradicional: Donald J. Trump. Su mensaje se dirige a una población electoral de hombres ‘blancos’ frustrados sin empleo, sin vivienda propia y sin seguridad social. Esa masa sorprendió a los ‘expertos’ y arrasó en las primarias. Le dio a Trump los delegados que lo van a coronar candidato Republicano.
Los ‘conservadores’ que planteaban políticas de austeridad fiscal, así como servicios de salud y educación privados fueron desplazados por Trump. El candidato multimillonario de Nueva York no le hizo caso a los postulados del segmento conservador del Partido Republicano. Incluso, durante las primarias, fue ambiguo en muchos puntos sacrosantos para las iglesias evangélicas (aliadas estratégicas del Partido Republicano). En cambio, Trump arremetió contra los migrantes mexicanos, los afronorteamericanos, las mujeres y los musulmanes. Prometió acabar con los tratados de libre comercio, destruir militarmente al ‘Estado Islámico’ y “rescatar nuevamente la grandeza de EEUU”.
Trump parece entender que las capas medias norteamericanas que constituían la base de los partidos políticos de EEUU, durante la segunda mitad del siglo XX, en la práctica han desparecido. Logró conectar con el votante medio norteamericano que quiere rescatar un imaginario del pasado que pareciera mejor. Este sector del electorado cree que los migrantes, las mujeres y los musulmanes son sus enemigos.
El mensaje de Trump logró despertar este sector de la derecha política que no tenía un abanderado. Rechazan, igual que Trump, a los empresarios que exportaron sus empleos a otros países. Durante las primarias Trump desplazó el centro tradicional de la derecha norteamericana a posiciones más radicales. La estrategia de Trump será, a partir de junio, atraer a los jóvenes frustrados del Partido Demócrata que apoyan al senador Bernie Sanders. Cree que éstos no apoyarán a la candidata demócrata Hilary Clinton, que consideran demasiada comprometida con el status quo.
Si Trump gana las elecciones, cuenta con el apoyo estratégico de un relativamente pequeño pero poderoso sector del establishment que ha sido marginado del poder desde los tiempos de Nixon. Se trata de los antiguos capitanes de la industria norteamericana desplazados por el sector financiero ‘globalizado’. En política exterior, Trump es ‘alumno’ de Henry Kissinger quien promueve un acercamiento a Rusia, contrario a la posición prevaleciente en los círculos dominantes de EEUU.
Trump quiere convertir a Rusia en un aliado “subordinado” igual que las otras antiguas potencias europeas. Incluso, visualiza a la OTAN moviendo sus tropas del centro de Europa hasta las fronteras de China. Es la política de ‘contención’ tan acariciada por Kissinger en sus buenos tiempos.
Ideológicamente, Trump es un populista de derecha, que movilizará a los norteamericanos contra los partidos políticos como una táctica para las elecciones, pero no creará un movimiento político capaz de retar el establishment. En este sentido, Trump no tiene una agenda política fascista, aunque su discurso lo aparenta.
Si llega a la Presidencia, Trump dice que sus proyectos serán pagados por trabajadores extranjeros. Sin embargo, serán los trabajadores norteamericanos que llevarán la mayor parte de la carga (incremento de impuestos y pérdida de más empleos) para financiar sus proyectos de expansión y ‘grandeza’ que promete en sus arengas.
~ ~ ~
Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web
por la Federación de Asociaciones Profesionales de Panamá (FEDAP)
La imposición de parte del gobierno de Juan Carlos Varela de un nuevo Decreto Ejecutivo para propiciar la inmigración indiscriminada y sin controles, a través de la incorporación de nuevas modalidades o categorías que permiten a extranjeros, de manera expedita, acogerse a los beneficios de las visas de inmigrantes o permisos temporales, y también otorgarles los permisos de trabajo correspondientes, resulta inaceptable y viola la dignidad nacional.
El ejercicio ilegal de las diversas profesiones amparadas por la Constitución y las Leyes de la República de Panamá, o de aquellas profesiones que aún no cuentan con su legislación, pero que por su naturaleza deben ser reservadas para los nacionales, debe ser rechazado sin rodeos por todos los que queremos un Panamá democrático.
Ante la ausencia de una política migratoria coherente y cónsona con los intereses de nuestro país, los profesionales y trabajadores panameños se han visto afectados por la práctica ilegal de ciudadanos extranjeros que, en abierto irrespeto a Convenciones Internacionales y a las Leyes de la Republica de Panamá y sus ciudadanos, ejercen ilegalmente, profesiones reguladas y privativas para nacionales, lo cual ha ocasionado un desplazamiento de la mano de obra cualificada panameña.
Ha sido con el beneplácito y la complicidad de las autoridades del gobierno nacional, y algunas empresas que contratan a extranjeros en abierta violación a las disposiciones laborales, que nos encontramos en una situación en extremo perjudicial para los profesionales nacionales cuya idoneidad y derecho al trabajo, están sustentados por la Constitución y la Ley.
LA FEDAP exige que se investigue y se sancione ejemplarmente, a todos los que se encuentren ejerciendo ilegalmente, profesiones en el territorio nacional, en el área del derecho, de la salud, de la ingeniería, agronomía, contabilidad, química, sociología, periodismo, relaciones públicas, comunicación social, física, economía, psicología, arquitectura, entre otras profesiones; con miras a respetar de una vez por todas, la política migratoria establecida por Ley y no por Decretos antojadizos, que en lugar de proteger los intereses nacionales, protegen los intereses particulares y atentan contra la dignidad de los profesionales y los trabajadores de la República de Panamá.
La FEDAP repudia una vez más, los graves niveles de corrupción que acarrean los procedimientos de registros migratorios que establecen montos y formas de pago, incluyendo entrega de dinero en efectivo, que son aprobados de espaldas a la ciudadanía y al margen de la Ley.
Aprobado en la reunión de Junta Directiva Ampliada, celebrada el día miércoles
8 de junio de 2016.
Miguel Antonio Bernal Presidente
Rebeca Yanis Orobio Secretaria
~ ~ ~
Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web
Gathered to defend Ngabe land and water resources, and a way of life. Photo by Chiriqui Natural.
Open letter to President Varela: suspend the Barro Blanco flooding
by Carbon Market Watch and nine other groups
Dear President Varela,
We, the undersigned organizations, are deeply concerned for the personal safety and security of the Ngäbe communities, affected by the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Power Plant Project, who are determined to stay and defend their sacred lands, regardless of the ongoing flooding. We urge you to protect their life and their integrity and to immediately suspend the test flooding which is violating their rights and placing them at risk of irreparable harm.
On May 22, Panama’s National Authority for Public Services (ASEP) announced in a press release that Barro Blanco’s reservoir would be filled[1], starting on May 24. ASEP’s press release indicated that the water would rise up to 103 meters above sea level by June 21, 2016.
According to a fact finding mission led by the United Nations Development Programme in 2012[2], the Ngäbe communities of Kiad, Nuevo Palomar and Quebrada Caña will be directly impacted by the flooding. This report indicates that 6 hectares + 9816.86 m² of their lands, including 6 houses and a petroglyph located in the community of Quebrada Caña, will be under water.
Furthermore, we have received reports from members of the affected communities that floodwaters of the Barro Blanco reservoir have reached the limits of the Bakama Area (Corregimiento) of the Ngäbe-Bugle Territory (Comarca) in Western Panama. At this point, the Ngäbe communities of Quebrada Plata, Quebrada Caña, Kiad and Nuevo Palomar — as well as the Mama Tatda ceremonial sites — could be seriously harmed by the so-called test flooding this week, much ahead of the estimated June 21 peak level announced by ASEP.
Contrary to what is stated by ASEP press release, and as confirmed by Milton Henriquez, Minister of Government[3], the affected communities were not notified or consulted prior to this process. This goes against the international human rights law, which stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to free, prior and informed consent. As derived from the right to property protected under the American Convention on Human Rights and other agreements, indigenous peoples have also the right to adequate housing, to possess, use, and “freely enjoy” their traditional lands and territories, and to “not be forcibly removed” from them[4].
Sincerely,
Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense – AIDA
Both Ends
Carbon Market Watch
Center for International Environmental Law – CIEL
Center for Research on Multinational Corporations – SOMO
Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail. Photo by Gage Skidmore.
Hillary has the votes
Hillary Clinton won most of the votes in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, giving her the majority of pledged delegates and, barring something very unusual, the nomination. Her winning edge was most of all provided by strong support from African-American voters and those over 45 years old.
Bernie Sanders came close and has every right to stay in the race into the Philadelphia convention. Between now and November Clinton will have to win the support of those who voted for Sanders if she is to have much chance of beating Donald Trump, but conversely Bernie Democrats and his independent supporters would be foolish to sit out the general election or to split off into protest votes. It would be a literally deadly error to allow Mr. Trump and his would-be lynch mob to get their hands on the levers of power.
The movement that rallied behind Sanders will continue. As you read these words it lives on in Tim Canova’s campaign to drive Debbie Wasserman Schultz out of Congress and out of public life in Florida’s August primary. The demographics of this year’s primary season, with overwhelming majorities of under-40 voters going for Sanders, suggest better days to come for that political force. But that movement must also be mature and sophisticated enough to adjust to the ups and downs of multiple political cycles and to deal with the realities of options that are presented at any given time if it is to thrive.
The Sanders phenomenon, seen in its proper context, did not start with him or his campaign — it was evident in the Occupy movement, in the ongoing search for alternatives to corporate news, in a generation unwilling to accept a future of never-ending war and debt. It’s not going away, and although too many comparisons to the bigoted irrationalism of the Tea Party faction of Republicans would be ridiculous, in one sense it’s a mirror image: what has arisen this past year on the campaign trail is likely to shatter comfortable Democratic Party insider arrangements just like the ultra-right has shattered the old Republican establishment.
Due mainly to its prevailing “first past the post” election system the United States has two parties that embrace factions that in most other countries would be four or five parties. What Hillary and Bernie ought to do right now is akin to what happens in parliamentary democracies with more than a couple of relevant parties: they need to sit down for a US version of coalition talks, knowing full well that all of their differences will never go away. In such talks Sanders would be the junior partner in any alliance and promises of cabinet posts and hack jobs in a new administration would not suffice. There need to be some compromises on policy and some understandings about which lines would end the alliance once overstepped.
Perhaps the first order of business in any unity talks should be a commitment to new voting rights legislation, not just to restore that part of the old law that has been gutted by a Republican Supreme Court but to prevent another set of abuses like we have seen this primary season. There should be no discrimination or vote suppression based on age or a person’s status as a student. People should go to prison for tampering with voters’ registrations. Those jurisdictions that played these “We reduced the number of polling places to save money” or “We ran out of ballots in the campus area so many of those voters got provisional ballots that are not counted” games should be under permanent federal election supervision, as was once the case — and should be again — with jurisdictions that have a history of preventing racial minorities from voting.
An immediate big problem for Democrats is that in order to fit the Clinton low-turnout primary strategy Debbie Wasserman Schultz in many ways demobilized the Democratic Party for several years. She cut off discussion and debate among Democrats, prevented voter registration drives and reduced the party’s visible presence to insulting and ineffective email spam to raise money. It’s an abbreviated catch-up game to make up for lost time.
Where should Democrats go looking for votes in this too short of a voter registration and turnout effort? First of all, among everyone whom Donald Trump has gone out of his way to insult.
The next security minister in a previous role.
Should we have an explosives expert as security minister?
It ought to be a no-brainer to have somebody with vast police experience as Minister of Public Security. The problem is, Panama had a 21-year dictatorship and before that a Guardia Nacional that frequently stepped in, either overtly or behind the scenes, to tip the balance in decisions that should have belonged to the voters alone. In the wake of the 1989 invasion there was a national consensus in favor of putting the police agencies descended from the old Guardia under at least three levels of civilian control.
The problem is that we have never gotten around to writing a new constitution to replace the dictatorship’s 1972 political charter and the patches upon patches have been insufficient. Times changed, external pressures to join the US “War on Drugs” and take sides in Colombia’s civil conflict altered our post-invasion determination to demilitarize and the breakdown of our political party system has most of the political caste terrified of a constitutional convention that can’t be controlled by their usual political games.
We need a new constitution in which cops don’t dominate the political institutions, politicians don’t run the sports federations and a man or woman who has risen through the uniformed ranks can be treated as a trusted and honored public servant and expert in his or her field. We hope that he doesn’t feel the need to blow anything up, but we wish former National Police Commissioner Alexis Bethancourt Yau every success at his new post as Minister of Public Security, which he will occupy during the too-long interim before the Panamanian people decide what the qualifications for and functions of that job ought to be.
Bear in mind…
A truly free society must not include a “peace” which oppresses us.
Petra Kelly
Socialist ideology, like so many others, has two main dangers. One stems from confused and incomplete readings of foreign texts, and the other from the arrogance and hidden rage of those who, in order to climb up in the world, pretend to be frantic defenders of the helpless so as to have shoulders on which to stand.
José Martí
All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final.
Hypatia of Alexandria
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
The WTO rejected Colombia’s “money laundering duty” on textiles, shoes and clothing imported via Panama — but they didn’t say that the money laundering doesn’t happen.
Panama’s win at the WTO still leaves an opening for money laundering duties
by Eric Jackson
And on-and-off decade-long trade battle between Panama and Colombia may have ended with a June 7 ruling by the World Trade Organization’s appeals panel in Geneva. WTO rules put maximum duties on textiles, clothing and shoes at between 35 and 40 percent, but Colombia applied a 10 percent plus more depending on a variety of factors formula on these products coming in via the Colon Free Zone, with the totals exceeding the allowed percentages. The Colombians argued that the prices of things going in and out of the Free Zone are often unrelated to market value, with nominal values set very low for money laundering transactions in which profit or loss in the supposed business doesn’t really matter. Buy low and sell high and you can make a lot of money, and write make-believe billings that purport that this is what’s happening and you can launder a lot of money. The Colombians claimed that their national footwear, cloth and needle trades sectors were getting hammered but such scams as already cheap Asian product came into their country via Panama at much lower prices than a real market would bear.
Did Panama say that Colombia’s government is trying to protect its own apparel manufacturing sectors against foreign competition? Of course. It’s true.
The panel in Geneva did not reject the Colombian proofs, nor did it deny that money laundering is affecting Panamanian – Colombian trade. They just held that the duties in question were not necessary to stop these sorts of transactions. Might such a duty be necessary in another case? Maybe, but the panel just dealt with the dispute at hand. Wit this ruling on the heels of the Mossack Fonseca revelations and the Waked bust, Panama avoided a third high-profile money laundering stain in as many months.
The dispute may or may not end now, because Colombia may disregard the ruling, or it may come up with some new sorts of sanctions. Panama has this reputation in the world of trade and financial services, and Colombia is not the only South American country that has been complaining about it. The next retaliatory or discriminatory measures may or may not get thrown out by international tribunals.
Find links to the WTO panel’s decision, and an addendum to it, here.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
If you are away from Panama City, you can still join the Democrats Abroad meeting
Just a reminder that Democrats Abroad Panama will be holding its next meeting on Saturday June 11th from 1 to 2 p.m. at the Balboa Yacht Club. If you are not able to attend in person, you may attend online via WebX. The use of WebX is free to you — but Democrats Abroad always welcomes donations to cover this and other costs. Please find below details of how to attend.
* Topic: DA Panama, Sat, 6/11 14:00, 1
* Date: Saturday, June 11, 2016
* Time: 2:00 pm, Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00, Panama 1:00 pm)
* Meeting Number: 731 901 255
* Meeting Password: padems
===
To join the online meeting:
1.) Select this direct link to the meeting :
https://democratsabroad.webex.com/democratsabroad/j.php?MTID=mfbd516c9fb39bbc5a3be2c019a8fc656
(or, you can find your meeting on the WebEx Calendar at: https://democratsabroad.webex.com/)
2.) Enter your name, _with your Country Code _ and email address. Note: If you don’t know the code, just write your country and/or the group you represent. (This is not required to logon to the meeting)
3.) Enter the meeting password: padems
4.) Click “Join”.
5.) When the WebEx Meeting Center application opens, _select the button that says “Call Using Computer”_ (in the Audio Conference pop-up box, under Use Computer for Audio), and you will be able to hear the call conversation.
6.) Please remember to always MUTE your microphone (use the Red Mute Mic button next to your name in the Participants List on the right side of the screen). This will make the audio much clearer for everyone on the call.
===
To only join the audio portion of the meeting:
– Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208
– Meeting Call-in Access code: 731 901 255
(Please Note: DA is charged 5¢ per-minute for all calls made using this number.)
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
The OAS takes up the Venezuela question, but can’t agree on very much. Photo by the OAS.
Demise of the OAS
by William Camacaro and Frederick B. Mills — Council on Hemispheric Affairs
The fact is that we need not only a new human rights system, but a new inter-American system. We must understand that the Americas to the north and to the south of the Rio Grande are different, and we must communicate as blocs. The Organization of American States, the OAS, has historically been the prisoner of North American interests and visions, and its accrued biases and atavisms make it inefficient and unreliable for the new times that Latin America and the Caribbean are experiencing.
Speech by President Rafael Correa of Ecuador at the Seventh Summit of the Americas, April 10 to 11, 2015, Panama City, Panama1
The Organization of American States (OAS), on account of its traditional subordination to North American interests, has proven to be adversarial to the Bolivarian movement towards Latin American integration and independence. This contradiction has come into full relief in the ongoing attempt by Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, to use the institution’s Democratic Charter against the administration of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. This essay takes a brief look at two historic regional conferences held during the past week that reject Almagro’s interventionism and partisanship and implicitly call into question the continued viability of the OAS.
An “extraordinary session” of the Permanent Council of the OAS, convened by petition2 of the permanent missions of Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Costa Rica and the United States, was held on June 1, 2016 in Washington to consider the “project of a declaration about the situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” Venezuela had also submitted a request to convene the Council to discuss “the dialogue initiative currently being pursued in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, promoted by [the Union of South American Nations] UNASUR … as well as the submission of a draft declaration of support for the aforementioned initiative.” The extraordinary session ultimately accommodated all of the petitions and was held just one day after Almagro invoked the Democratic Charter against Venezuela.3 On June 4, 2016, the Seventh Summit of the Association of Caribbean States (AEC) met in Havana and took the opportunity to weigh in on the same issues. The communiques coming out of both of these conferences, in effect, reject the activation of the Democratic Charter against Venezuela and support the ongoing mediation efforts of the UNASUR. We will discuss these conferences in more detail below.4
Almagro at the helm of the OAS
With its image already tarnished by decades of serving as the seat of imperial domination in the region, the OAS has been in a free fall since the new Secretary General, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, Luis Almagro, has been at the helm. In his first year, Almagro has doggedly represented the US-backed Venezuelan opposition, the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), which won a majority of seats in the National Assembly last December, and he persistently has attacked the Chavista administration of President Nicolas Maduro. This blatantly partisan and interventionist campaign culminated at the end of May 2016 in Almagro’s invocation of the Democratic Charter on behalf of the opposition and against the will of the Maduro administration.
Activation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter could ultimately result in the temporary suspension of a member state from the OAS, but such a move would require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the member states after other remedies are considered to have failed.5 In the case of Venezuela, given the push back by the Permanent Council of the OAS and the position of the AEC against activation of the Charter, such a scenario is highly improbable, but should it somehow proceed, it would likely exacerbate an already volatile political climate and could help provide a pretext for foreign intervention in that country. Taken in context, Almagro’s efforts are aligned with the Obama administration’s renewal of an executive order against Venezuela last March, a bellicose measure that follows more than 15 years of US support for the counter-revolution in this South American nation.6
The Extraordinary Session of the Permanent Council of the OAS
At the extraordinary session of the Permanent Council of the OAS held in Washington on June 1, 2016, neither Almagro nor Washington were able to call the shots. The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of the Americas (ALBA) and the Caribbean nations took a strong position in favour of regional sovereignty and even some of the more conservative governments which are often critical of the Maduro administration joined in the consensus. The Declaration of the Permanent Council clearly supports the efforts at dialogue over activation of the Democratic Charter in the case of Venezuela. The body of the declaration7 states:
CONSIDERING:
That the Charter of the Organization recognizes that representative democracy is essential for stability, peace and development in the region, and that one of its main purposes is to promote and strengthen democracy in accordance with the respect for the non intervention principle in the domestic affairs of the States; and that every State has the right to choose, without external interference, its political, economic, and social system and to organize itself in the way best suited to it.
DECLARES:
1. Its fraternal offer to the sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in order to identify, by common accord, a course of action that will assist the search for solutions to the situation through open and inclusive dialogue among the government, other constitutional authorities and all political and social players of that nation to preserve peace and security in Venezuela, with full respect for its sovereignty.
2. Support the initiative of the former Presidents José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain, Leonel Fernández of Dominican Republic and Martín Torrijos of Panama for reopening of an effective dialogue between the Government and the Opposition, in order to find alternatives to promote political stability, social development and economic recovery of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
3. Support for the various national dialogue initiatives that may lead to, in accordance with the constitution and full respect for human rights, the timely and effective resolution of differences and the consolidation of representative democracy.
4. Support for all efforts of understanding, dialogue and the constitutional procedures.
While there was consensus on the final declaration, not all members were content with the process. In a recent interview with Colombian Radio F.M., Juan Jose Arcuri, Argentine Permanent Representative to the OAS and Chairman of the Permanent Council, described Almagro’s management of the process as “without consultation or coordination” and agreed with his fellow ministers that “the entire question of Venezuela ought to be dealt with by the Venezuelans.”8 It is also likely that some ministers were hesitant to set a precedent for one member state to invoke the democratic charter as a political instrument for isolating and delegitimizing another member state or one of its branches of government.
Something much larger than pragmatism, however, was operative in the resistance to Almagro’s interventionism at the extraordinary session of the Permanent Council. Having been an instrument of US hegemony since its founding in 1948, the OAS appears to have lost all of its luster in the global South as formerly subaltern peoples insist on expressing their own cultural identities and exercising sovereignty in the political and economic spheres of their territories.
The Seventh Summit of the Association of Caribbean States (AEC)
On June 4, at the Seventh Summit of the AEC, which includes 25 of the 34 member states of the OAS, met in Havana. President Raúl Castro opened the session with a statement that included some of the common concerns of the association:
We cannot remain indifferent to disturbances in Latin America and the Caribbean resulting from the imperialist and oligarchic counteroffensive unleashed against popular and progressive governments, which emerged after the failure of the neoliberal wave. This constitutes a threat to peace, stability, unity and indispensable regional integration.
He expressed solidarity with the government of President Nicolas Maduro and concern over the interventionism of the Secretary General of the OAS:
It is a source of deep concern, the unacceptable attempt by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States to apply the so-called Inter-American Democratic Charter to interfere with the internal affairs of Venezuela.
And Castro made it clear Havana had no interest in returning to the OAS:
I would only reiterate our view that the OAS, from its inception was, as it is and will continue to be, an instrument of imperialist domination, and no reform whatsoever can change its nature or its history. That is why Cuba will never return to the OAS.
It is significant that Castro referred to the inability of the OAS to “change its nature or its history.” We are living at a time when Latin America and the Caribbean are coming to terms with the historic memory of the dirty wars of the past century. We are also witnessing the continued revitalization of the Bolivarian independence movement that began with the election of Hugo Chávez as President of Venezuela in December of 1998. What is impossible to comprehend from the point of view of US exceptionalism is the rationality and humanity of today’s tremendous resistance to foreign domination that motivates the popular sectors throughout the region.
Taking note of the efforts at dialogue promoted by the government of the Republic of Venezuela, accompanied by UNASUR:
We support the initiative of ex-presidents José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain, Leonel Fernández of the Dominican Republic and Martín Torrijos of Panama, for the re-opening of an effective dialogue between the government and the opposition, with the goal of finding alternatives that favor political stability, social development, and the economic recovery of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela;
We also support the different initiatives for national dialogue that are directed, with adherence to the [Venezuelan] Constitution and with full respect for human rights, in an opportune, prompt and effective manner, towards the resolving of differences and consolidation of democracy; and we support all the efforts at mutual understanding, dialogue and constitutional procedures. [Unofficial translation by the authors]
This communique provides a further bulwark against the traditional imperial pretensions of the OAS. It also constitutes a victory for the cause of dialogue in Venezuela at a time of economic crisis and intense political polarization.
The final declaration of the AEC11 makes it clear that the Association rejects not only intervention in Venezuela, but also US coercive measures against Cuba or any other country in the region:
[The Association] welcomes with satisfaction the restoration of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States of America and the reopening of their respective embassies. Reiterates its deepest rejection to the application of unilateral coercive measures and reaffirms its call to the Government of the United States to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on that sister nation, repeal the Helms-Burton Law and cease its extraterritorial application. Urges the President of the United States to use his broad executive powers to substantially modify the blockade.
Despite the defeat of Almagro’s partisan initiative on June 1st and again on June 4th, there is still a request pending by Almagro to the Chair of the Permanent Council for an “urgent session“12 sometime between June 10-20 to consider the activation of the Democratic Charter against Venezuela. Though it is not on the official agenda, Almagro has also indicated his desire that “the theme of Venezuela” should be raised at the Annual General Assembly of the OAS13 that will convene on June 15 in Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic. The main topic of the assembly will be “strengthening the institution.” The irony will probably not be lost on the member states.
William Camacaro, MFA, is Senior Research Fellow at COHA and co-founder of the Alberto Lovera Bolivarian Circle of New York; Frederick B. Mills, Ph.D., is a Guest Scholar and Professor of Philosophy at Bowie State University.
10. Goldwyn, David L., and Cory R. Gill. The Waning of Petrocaribe? – Central America and Caribbean Energy in Transition. Atlantic Council. Accessed June 06, 2016. http://publications.atlanticcouncil.org/Petrocaribe/.
