CommonPrejudice

Kristol out at NYTimes

Bill Kristol, as most will know by now, is out at the NYTimes. A more incompetent hack one would be hard pressed to find. In his last column he states.

Over the next three decades, it was modern conservatism, led at the crucial moment by Ronald Reagan, that assumed the task of defending liberty with strength and confidence.

For old times' sake , and just so we never forget.

....The contras' brutality earned them a wide notoriety. They regularly destroyed health centers, schools, agricultural cooperatives, and community centers-symbols of the Sandinistas' social programs in rural areas. People caught in these assaults were often tortured and killed in the most gruesome ways. One example, reported by The Guardian of London, suffices. In the words of a survivor of a raid in Jinotega province, which borders on Honduras:

"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."

Americas Watch, the human-rights organization, concluded that "the contras systematically engage in violent abuses ... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war."

-----------

I'm a contra, too  -Ronald Reagan

See ya, Bill.

I Saw it Coming

Yesterday I saw this story and almost posted my reaction

The amendment, which applies to all elected officials, must be approved by a referendum within 30 days, a vote correspondents say is set to be close....

...He (Chavez) said it would be dangerous to remove a captain from his ship halfway through the voyage.

My first thought was how this is exactly the wrong attitude in terms of developing new political movement in any Latin American country. A captain ... or shall we say more accurately a caudillo, is the last thing a movement challenging the conservative status quo needs. It's absolutely essential that social change not depend on the charisma or power of one leader. Besides being anti-democratic it can only to a very limited perspectives on the most pressing issues of the day, developing a crew of 'yes-man' instead of the type of critical thinkers you need. This leads to the kind short-sighted and/or horribly ill-informed social and economic policies that plagued the first ten years of the Cuban revolution.

To put it simply, the boat analogy is terrible. Obviously leaders are needed to achieve any real social change. However given the success leftists have had in Latin America with a single leader possessing a "charismatic personality and enough of a populist program" if the success of the Venezulan revolution depends on just this one person then there will be very little chance of significant and lasting positive change.

------

That all said, I am writing this now because I was going to note one other thing yesterday. I wondered how long it would take for a liberal posting on Venezuela to refer to this ballot initiative in Venezuela as Chavez's plan to be president for life.

Well it wouldn't have taken long. Commenting on a story involving oil Kevin Drum states:

I suppose the companies who are bidding on the Orinoco projects may be counting on Chávez failing in his attempt to become president for life, and are thus figuring they won't have to deal with him in the long term.

The amendment calls for an elimination of term limits. Like, say, what exists now in Canada for the prime minister (and in many other countries for their leaders).There is no excuse for this kind of sloppiness by a "progressive" blogger of Drum's stature. This is especially poor coming from an American who very well realizes that Senators have no term limits and most are there f***ing forever.

There is plenty one can very legitimately criticize in Venezuela. But playing this wingnut type of game is very destructive.

"War on Democracy"

[Update below: Sister Diana Ortiz]

Just watched John Pilger's documentary "The War on Democracy." The second part of the film on the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America - while well-known to those of us who study the region - should be part of the basic curriculum in U.S. schools. Then maybe in mainstream America it will begin to be understood that it matters significantly more what the foreign policy of the candidate is than the candidate's bowling score. And maybe unnecessary wars that kill hundreds of thousands can be avoided.

Anyway, one reason I'm mentioning the documentary is to note perhaps one of the greatest wankers of all time, CIA chief of Latin America from 1981-1984 Duane Clarridge.

From the film (one of (the few) survivors of a concentration camp during Pinochet's fascist regime in Chile):

They took me to this room. They were punching me, hitting me, grabbing my nipples, telling me I was a whore, So they asked me to take off my clothes and they tied me up. Then they shocked me with electricity. Now the electricity all the time was inside my vagina, on my breasts and then it was going round my body, my legs, my arms ...

She was pregnant, Cecilia, 3 months pregnant when they took her, and they took another women ... she was 7 months pregnant, she went missing as well...

Sometime I think about what were they feeling, you know, when they were being killed....sometimes I think too much and I start feeling the pain. What do you feel when you are being killed, and in such a way... You wanted to do something for them.  Such isolation, you feel ... you feel very much alone.

Now Clarridge talking to Pilger (kudos to Pilger, the interview with this Clarridge was done quite well. For the most part there is no need to excessively challenge a clown like this, just give him the rope, he will hang himself):

Clarridge: Chile, the only reason it exists is because of Pinochet.

Pilger: At a huge human price.

Clarridge: What human price? Gimme a break.

Pilger: The thousands who were disappeared and murdered.

Clarridge: Thousands? You count 'em. What thousands? And don't talk to me about Truth Commissions.

Pilger: I've seen their names in the cemeteries in Santiago.

Clarrdige: I have too. There aren't thousands.

It has been indeed rare when I've seen arrogance and ignorance at the level this gentleman possesses. Watch the film. You will surely be repulsed. He is the epitome of everything that has been wrong with American foreign policy in Latin America - and he tries to justify  the most heinous, repugnant acts against humanity one can imagine through inane, erroneous and ethnocentric references which in the end basically turn into, 'yeah and so, what are you going to do about it?"

Yeah, right. Moral clarity.

Watching this fool rant on Chile reminded me of a Chilean student I once taught English to. She was quite obviously from the elite in Chile. Once when the name Allende came up she mentioned how her aunt had told her it was good thing for Chile that Pinochet had come along to save the country from another Castro. The anecdote she recalled was how her aunt had said how Allende was planning on forcing all the lactating women in the country to donate their milk so as to feed the poor. Then she laughed that laugh of relief; Thank god we avoided another Cuba.

Despite my horror at her ignorance and rationalizations there was nothing I could say (in Spanish even) that would have changed her opinion. She is supposed to believe some guy teaching her English over her aunt?  But really my point is that she was an incredibly sweet girl, endlessly polite with a constant smile on her face. She was not, in any stretch, a bad person. Initially I am tempted to ask, in situations like this, that if even a person as nice as she is refuses to see the evil in a monster like Pinochet, what hope is there. But in the end I don't see it that way.

In a sense the contradiction between her personality and nature and the defending of indefensible, ie Pincohet's regime, is a positive thing for me. It allows me as a progressive to continue to be on the side of justice and human rights and for the well-being of those who are abused and denied the most basic forms of dignity wihtout declaring the battle futile. Unlike the goon Clarridge who actually lived it and contributed to it then pretends it didn't happen, she really didn't know or under the circumstances was incapable of believing what the reality was. You see, this way I can believe that the fight is fundamentally against ignorance and not human nature. And that gives me some hope.

Update:

Another quote from the doc:

I've heard people say that what happened at Abu Ghraib is an isolated incident. And I have to just shake my head and say, 'Are we on the same planet? Aren't you aware of our history? Is the history taught about the role of the U.S. government in human rights violations?

-American nun Sister Diana Ortiz, who was abducted, raped and tortured in 1989 after speaking out against indigenous oppression by the U.S./Bush supported dictatorship Guatemalan government.

[A statement of hers regarding her torture, from Wiki:

    When the men returned, they had a video camera and a still camera. The policeman put a machete into my hands. Thinking it would be used against me, and at that point in my torture wanting to die, I did not resist. But the policeman put his hands onto the handle, on top of mine, and forced me to stab the woman again and again...

    The policeman asked me if I was now ready to talk, and one of the other torturers...mentioned that they had just filmed...me stabbing the woman. If I refused to cooperate, their boss, Alejandro, would...turn the videotapes and the photographs over to the press.... This was the first I had heard of Alejandro, the torturers’ boss....

    The policeman raped me again. Then I was lowered into a pit full of bodies— bodies of children, men, and women, some decapitated, all caked with blood. A few were still alive. I could hear them moaning. Someone was weeping. I didn’t know if it was me or somebody else. A stench of decay rose from the pit. Rats swarmed over the bodies and were dropped onto me as I hung suspended over the pit by the wrists. I passed out and when I came to I was lying on the ground beside the pit, rats all over me.

Also, regarding the U.S. involvement:

     The only uncommon element of my ordeal was that I survived, probably because I was a U.S. citizen, and phone calls poured into Congress when I was reported missing. As a U.S. citizen, I had another advantage: I could, in relative safety, reveal afterwards the details of what happened to me in those twenty-four hours. One of those details: an American was in charge of my torturers

    I remember the moment he removed my blindfold. I asked him, "Are you an American?" In poor Spanish and with a heavy American accent, he answered me with a question: "Why do you want to know?" Moments before, after the torturers had blindfolded me again and were getting ready to rape me again, they had called out in Spanish: "Hey, Alejandro, come and have some fun!" And a voice had responded "Shit!" in perfect American English with no trace of an accent. It was the voice of the tall, fair-skinned man beside me. After swearing, he’d switched to a halting Spanish. "Idiots!" he said. "She’s a North American nun." He added that my disappearance had been made public, and he ran them out of the room.

    ....He kept telling me he was sorry. The torturers had made a mistake. We came to a parking garage, where he put me into a gray Suzuki jeep and told me he was taking me to a friend of his at the U.S. embassy who would help me leave the country. For the duration of the trip, I spoke to him in English, which he understood perfectly. He said he was concerned about the people of Guatemala and consequently was working to liberate them from Communism. Alejandro told me to forgive my torturers because they had confused me with Veronica Ortiz Hernandez. It was an honest mistake.

Also on the issue see this previous post.

Uh Oh, Another Latin American Populist

Yesterday Paraguay joined the ranks of the Latin American countries tired of the endless corruption of the traditional political parties in the region and the huge inequalities brought on by years of IMF managed economic approaches when they elected former Roman Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo.

Now you can sure the Oppenheimer and his fellow travelers will be warning against reckless populism that this election result surely demonstrates. Stepping up to the plate today is Latin Business Chronicle:

First and foremost, Lugo should realize that Paraguay's status as the poorest nation in South America is not due to Capitalism, but rather the lack of true free markets.

Besides being an empty cliche devoid of any actual specific policy advice (usually done on purpose because detailing the policies would show how little they differ from the disaster of the 1990s which led to devastating poverty, unemployment and economic instability), it is also presented without any actual evidence.

The article calls for a plan similar to Chile's and pleads to avoid following in Chavez's footsteps (couldn't see that coming, could you?) The article notes the very low rate of foreign investment in Paraguay and states that this is cause of all the underdevelopment. We know though from experience that foreign investment alone is not sufficient to develop a country. Local governments get precious little of the profits made from this investment as most of the profits are repatriated. Certainly in terms of employment and tax collection (from workers) expanding business by increased foreign investment can be a boon. But these so-called free markets that folks like those at Latin Business Chronicle call for are really a means to depress wages, limit union activity and eliminate regulations for  business, especially regarding the environment and workers' safety. The best case scenario usually is an expansion of the middle class while the poor' needs are never met. In the end a near or complete economic collapse is likely because the money that came into the country will leave just as quickly at the first sign of economic or political trouble. As almost always is the case you are left wondering where the social investment is going to come from?

We've seen this story a thousand times. It won't.

And for those who have only relied on traditional media to evaluate Venezuela's and Chile's economic performance I recommend this article by Mark Tuner from last December. He opens up by asking:

Here is a quiz for you: Which South American nation:

    a) depends on one single product for the majority of its exports?

    b) derives 35% of its total GDP from said product?

    c) has relied on the sharp rise in world market prices for its product to fuel growth?

    d) has not added significantly to its international currency reserves in the period?

    e) is often lauded as the LatAm model economy by world peers?

    f) may possibly be worried about forward macro effects of the recent drop of over 20% in world market prices for its main product?

    If you guessed Venezuela then began to doubt your choice, this analyst would not be at all surprised. The answer is Chile, and the major product in question is copper.

Turner also notes, unsurprisingly given how the business elite are usually enamored with Chile, that Chile's inflation rate is much lower than Venezuela. But much more importantly he also notes - again unsurprisingly given Venezuela's greater concern over the well being of all its population - how despite the much higher inflation rate in Venezuela real salaries there have exceeded the rate of inflation so people actually can purchase more. In Chile, despite the low inflation rate, salaries have failed to keep pace. But then again low inflation combined with low salaries is an investor's dream. Let them eat cake.

Turner notes how international reserves have greatly expanded in Venezuela whereas in Chile they have remained the same despite very high copper prices. Venezuela, Turner adds, has also done better in combating unemployment. He says:

Politically, Chile has been coming under greater pressure from its populace to spend more of its copper windfall. Polls suggest that two out of three Chileans want its government to relax the saving rules with the IMF and spend more of the windfall on social projects. This makes sense in a country that is ostensibly prosperous, but in fact runs the second highest level of social inequality in the LatAm region.

But...but.... social projects? Those aren't free markets!!

And by the way, Venezuela's record of economic growth has been outstanding the last 5 years. Of course you would never know that if you, say, relied on, the Miami Herald for your information. If you'd like another, much more accurate depiction of Venezuela today you can check this Mark Weisbrot article out [links to the actual study].

"The Venezuelan economy has been booming for five consecutive years now, with the poverty rate cut by more than half and real (inflation-adjusted) GDP increasing by more than 87 percent, with very little of that in oil," said Weisbrot.

"Real social spending per person has also tripled, with increased access to subsidized food, health care, and education for the poor. There really shouldn't be any question about these basic issues, and this debate should make that clear."

The paper also shows that the amount of poverty reduction accomplished in Venezuela during the current economic expansion, relative to the growth that has occurred, compares quite favorably to other countries - contrary to one of the main allegations in the Foreign Affairs article

Oh it seems that despite conservative critics claim's of reckless social spending by Chavez the year ended with a budget surplus.

How Time Flies

When I have finished my task here, I will retire and devote myself to other affairs.
- Fidel Castro, January 8, 1959

I neither will aspire to nor will I accept, the position of president of the council of state and commander in chief.
- Fidel Castro, February 19, 2008

That took awhile.

Miami Herald - Proudly Taking a Biased Story and Going That Extra Yard

Somerby today notes how the New York Times uses a comment from someone who knew Hillary Clinton more than thirty years ago and hasn't spoken to her in years as a source confirming a supposed Clinton personality trait in another one of the tedious "personality profiles." In the spirit of such fine journalism I present to you a little from today's Miami Herald.

In a piece that serves as a fine example of bias journalism Patricio Crooker and Jack Chang begin this way.

After 16 tumultuous months of debate, allies of Bolivia's leftist President Evo Morales hurriedly approved nearly all of a new constitution Sunday morning in a marathon overnight session.

Despite a year and a half of debate the constitution in Bolivia was "hurriedly" approved. Pretending to resolve this odd contradiction, the writers' later note that one of the opposition parties boycotted the vote apparently causing the government to hurry the process (of course the opposition then claimed the vote in congress was illegal because quorum was not reached). Considering that creating a new constitution has been fundamental part of Morales' aims since taking office and that the country has debated the issue for a year and a half and the constitution can only be enacted after the citizenry approves it in a referendum, presenting the issue in this manner seems like a veiled attack on Morales' supposed authoritarianism. Reading further (especially as the story appeared in the Herald - it was a wire story updated in the Herald with local reporting) this sensation is only confirmed.

In the course of the story the reporters manage to quote three opposition leaders harsh criticisms of the legislation without quoting a single supporter. This includes Ruben Costas, the governor of Santa Cruz, Bolivia's richest province, who offered his region the very reasonable advice of participating "militantly to defend and conquer the hate and resentment that wants to crush us.''

Now certainly with this kind of rhetoric one would think that the new constitution would be quite radical. Or maybe not so much.

"The proposed constitution grants more power to Bolivia's indigenous majority; abolishes the opposition-led Senate; imposes more state control over natural gas, minerals and other natural resources; and permits presidents to be elected to two consecutive five-year terms, a proposal that Morales' opponents call an authoritarian power grab.
[Of course they call it "authoritarian power grab." That makes perfect sense. The reporters wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't sneak in that little dig before getting to the barrage of criticism they later present. I mean, imagine if other countries in the world had political systems that allowed the reelection of a president. The horror]

A note regarding the how the Senate will be "abolished." One is hard pressed to find any other article regarding the result to use the term "abolish." In the Reuters' version we get this:

The assembly also approved articles requiring election rather than appointment of top judges, and transforming the voting mechanism for the upper house of Congress, which is currently controlled by the opposition

Not only do Crooker and Chang use questionable terminology in their portrayal of the reform of the congress and exclude the mention that judges will be elected - kind of goes against that "power grab" line - they also fail to note the following from Bloomberg (Be nice if one wire story could include all the relevant info, wouldn't it):

The constitution bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and, for the first time, recognizes black Bolivians -- descendants of slaves brought to the country by Spanish colonizers -- as an official minority along with indigenous groups.

 

Once more this would go against the dictator theme I suppose. Certainly just talking to the white elite opposition groups isn't going to get you there.

Now we should remember that we are talking about Bolivia, a country that has suffered under decades of extreme poverty (even by Latin American standards) with a tiny, white elite ruling - often ruthlessly - over the vast majority of the indigenous Bolivians while simultaneously selling off the nation's resources and filling their Swiss bank accounts. So if seemingly outlandish claims such as the one above or the following one are made ...

We're at a historic point that means the destruction of our homes, our workplaces and, above all, the very existence of our people as free citizens. Santa Cruz is in danger,''

then they better damn well have some basis in reality. C'mon a threat to "very existence of our people as free citizens." This comment is worthy of reprinting?

Now the version that the Herald saw fit to print goes one step further. They manage to include the reaction from actual Bolivians not in power. So the ace reporters from that staff race over to that epicentre of rationale and intellectual thought on Latin America, Calle 8 in the heart of Little Havana. In this added piece of the story we encounter some comments that remind us of the "thirty year old sources are good enough fro me" school that Somerby highlighted today.

'We are very worried because I think we're going the Venezuelan way,'' said Alfredo Rodríguez, 53, of Kendall. Rodríguez moved from La Paz, Bolivia, in 1977 because of a bleak economy. ``I think it will be a dictatorship.''

''Morales just killed the democracy by doing this,'' said Rodríguez, who owns the restaurant El Cristo in Little Havana.

''We worry about the future,'' said Rodríguez, who speaks daily to relatives still in Bolivia. ``The big dark cloud in the sky is a civil war. The worst thing that Morales did is pit Bolivians against Bolivians.''

So he moved here in 1977? Yes I'm sure he really has his fingers on the pulse of Bolivian society. This is clearly evident by him noting how the new constitution that gives more rights to the long repressed majority must be passed in a democratic referendum. You see that is simply the classic recipe for killing democracy. Hmm. I guess he doesn't mention that. But he does talk to his family.

In the print edition of the paper the editors found Rodríguez's first sage comment to be just perfect to enlarge and print as the only box quote. I mean that is really what the key to this story is. Giving more (some) power to the majority. Maintaining control over the nation's natural resources. Protecting other minorities. Putting everything to vote. When I hear these things, I think dictatorship. (Oh, and can he possible be serious about pitting Bolivians against Bolivians?)

Now of course everyone knows that in order to maintain their journalistic integrity good reporters must always present both sides of any argument regardless of how nonsensical one side is. Oh, wait I'm sorry. When discussing Latin American progressives it is perfectly acceptable to present just one side twice in the form of - to paraphrase an old Blues Brothers line - We've got both types of criticism, unfounded and illogical.  Here is Miami resident Abraham Malcuni - eminently more qualified that Rodriguez, having only moved away from Bolivia twenty years ago - offering up this fine morsel of wisdom.

''I am not happy because it has not been a unanimous vote,'' said Abraham Malcuni, 46, of Miami, who moved from Bolivia 20 years ago and owns a Bolivian restaurant. ``It was done behind closed doors by a group selected at the government level by Evo Morales.''

Noting the lack of an unanimous vote in changing the very power structure in a country long dominated by a tiny elite who still control much of the congress is certainly astute critique. Nevertheless I still contend the Herald  could have done better by, oh I don't know, talking to someone who lives there. Or at the very least present a criticism that has at least passing relationship with reality.

Sure everyone is entitled to an opinion and I understand that the Miami Herald is legally committed to running at least one hit piece on Chavez and/or Morales every day. However you might think (if you hadn't read their newspaper before) that they would aspire beyond printing what can be generously termed as simple minded slander. Then again that would be a disservice to all the fine ex-despots and gangsters from Latin America who depend on the paper to keep themselves hopelessly delusional and uninformed.

Update:
Perhaps the snarkiness of the post gives the impression that I am very much for the new Bolivian constitution. Honestly I do not know enough details one way or the other to form an opinion. However the Miami Herald isn't paying me to present the issue to the public either. The above critique was specifically related to the coverage of the passing of the constitution and the outlandish claims by those cited. I will, however, certainly be informed prior to any referendum, something I'm quite confident the mainstream media won't be.

"No" Wins Reform Vote in Venezuela

According to all the ranting and raving by mainstream media types I was under the impression that Chavez was dictator. I guess not.

The BBC's James Ingham in Caracas says Mr Chavez had expected a big win and will be very disappointed.

However, he swiftly conceded and urged the opposition to show restraint.

If he is going to be a real dictator Chavez is going to have to stop respecting the public will so much. Maybe he could talk to Calderon in Mexico about using the election equipment similar to that of Mexico's. You can pretty much get any result you want that way.

Once again, it's the poverty, stupid.

In what is for the most part a column that offers nothing at all of substance, in today's Miami Herald Michael Shifter, the vice-president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue, demonstrates the superficiality and obtuseness of today's political commentators. When discussing Alan Garcia's one year anniversary as president of Peru, Shifter states the following.

García is aware of the positive side of the globalization equation and is drawn to open markets. Peru is among the Latin American countries that has most benefited from the seemingly insatiable Chinese appetite for commodities, particularly in the mining sector. Peru's free-trade agreement with the United States has already been approved by the Peruvian congress, and in his first year García has been almost single-mindedly focused on getting it passed by the U.S. Congress.

Earlier Shifter noted that the Peruvian economy is growing at 8% (less than Venezuela's recent double digit growth but maybe the American media avoid discussing the growth in Venezuela because Chavez's popularity is only a little above 60% while Garcia's is soaring at 32% ... wait, I guess that can't be it either). But the point here I want to make is that the so-called globalization (I assume he means trade) can come in a wide variety of forms, as can market economies and neither are, as Shifter tries to portray, synonymous with "free-trade" deals with the U.S.

To be fair Shifter does note what the negative effects of "globalization" (his words)/ Washington consensus(my words) have been in Latin America in terms "huge disparities in wealth."  However he fails to cite, or really even mention, the widespread poverty (an issue I highlighted when discussing last year's election ... though it appears my optimism was misplaced).

So what does the vice-president of policy for the "the premier center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs" advocate for Peru (in the only part of the column that could be really considered policy related)?

Such policy options are understandable for a government intent on maintaining order, but they [Garcia's response of ignoring or threatening to use "la mano duro" in combatting the increasing protest movements]  are no substitute for pursuing the urgent social and political reforms -- in justice and security institutions, for example -- that García has so far resisted. Although the unrest has temporarily subsided, it is bound to resurface, which would make García's remaining four years shaky indeed. Moderation is welcome, but it may not be enough.

I have no idea how reforming the judicial and security institutions can possibly alleviate the widespread poverty and inequality. In fact Shifter seems to be both rejecting and advocating the "mano dura" in the very same paragraph. Frankly for a supposed policy expert to simple make some vague reference to "justice and security institutions" as a cure for the Peruvian society's ills is to say the least wanting.

Nevertheless this is very typical of the type of analysis offered by those who have great difficulty in understanding that it is precisely the policies of the previous decade (obsessive deregulation of the economy and capital controls, the wholesale selling off of the state's resources, the failure to properly tax multinational and national corporations, the lack of social investment, etc) - and the failure to make a clean break with them that has led to a situation where the poorest of Latinos have simply run out of patience.

Yeah I know. I believe it is Robert McClelland who has said it best:

But hey, Chavez…blah, blah, blah.

Responsible Opposition Media

Occasionally the American media decides for a moment to interrupt its Paris Hilton coverage and turn south for a look at how Hugo Chavez is destroying democracy. A couple of months ago there was much ado about his denial of a broadcasting license to the coup mongering RCTV.

Meanwhile the presidents of countries like Ecuador and Bolivia are usually portrayed as puppets of the evil Chavez. Funny, though, how little one hears of truly contemptible journalistic behavior such as the shenanigans recently orchestrated by the opposition media in Ecuador. Mark Weisbrot:

...on May 21 the opposition TV media launched an assault on President Correa's finance minister, Ricardo Patiño.  In a seven minute grainy video clip from a hidden camera, they showed the minister meeting on February 12 with two representatives of a New York investment firm, as well as a former finance minister. Patiño talks about "scaring the markets," in what looks like a plot to manipulate the country's bond market. The clip, taken out of context, was shown repeatedly for days on the TV news, spliced with gratuitous, unrelated images of faceless people counting large amounts of cash.

It turns out that the video was authorized by Patiño himself, an odd thing to do if one is meeting to plan a crime. Patiño claims that the purpose of the meeting and the taping of it was to investigate corruption. And indeed the rest of the video – not shown on TV but presented in a transcript published in Ecuador's major newspapers – supports his explanation. In the rest of the meeting, Patiño is probing for information on corrupt activities – including past market manipulations. He allows the others to present and explain the possibilities in detail, never agreeing to go along with anything – just as one would expect in an investigation of this sort. In fact he states that it would be wrong to manipulate the market. The meeting ends with one of the investors stating that nothing would be done regarding the current debt payment – which was due three days after the videotaped meeting -- but that they could think about what to do in the future.

But the TV media's repeated, propagandistic images – playing on people's cynicism from decades of corrupt government -- had the most influence. This emboldened the opposition to make more wild allegations of secret deals with foreign banks, and vote to censure Patiño in the Congress – which they control. All of this has been done without anyone presenting evidence that the finance minister was involved in any wrongdoing.
 
If all this seems Orwellian, it is....

Of course if Ecuadorean government actually tried to hold the purveyors of this kind of garbage responsible to some degree for their misinfomation campaign and libelous assaults then this would be the end of free speech in Ecuador.

Moderates

Anne-Marie Slaughter in a ridiculous column in the Washington Post today:

The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.

So this is what passes for moderate then?

My mind went back to May 1982 and I saw myself facing Negroponte in his office at the US Embassy in Tegucigalpa. I had gone to Honduras on a fact-finding delegation. We were looking for answers. Thirty-two women had fled the death squads of El Salvador after the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero in 1980 to take refuge in Honduras. One of them had been Romero's secretary. Some months after their arrival, these women were forcibly taken from their living quarters in Tegucigalpa, pushed into a van and disappeared. Our delegation was in Honduras to find out what had happened to these women.

John Negroponte listened to us as we exposed the facts. There had been eyewitnesses to the capture and we were well read on the documentation that previous delegations had gathered. Negroponte denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of these women. He insisted that the US Embassy did not interfere in the affairs of the Honduran government and it would be to our advantage to discuss the matter with the latter. Facts, however, reveal quite the contrary. During Negroponte's tenure, US military aid to Honduras grew from $4 million to $77.4 million; the US launched a covert war against Nicaragua and mined its harbors, and the US trained Honduran military to support the Contras.

John Negroponte worked closely with General Alvarez, Chief of the Armed Forces in Honduras, to enable the training of Honduran soldiers in psychological warfare, sabotage, and many types of human rights violations, including torture and kidnapping. Honduran and Salvadoran military were sent to the School of the Americas to receive training in counter-insurgency directed against people of their own country. The CIA created the infamous Honduran Intelligence Battalion 3-16 that was responsible for the murder of many Sandinistas. General Luis Alonso Discua Elvir, a graduate of the School of the Americas, was a founder and commander of Battalion 3-16. In 1982, the US negotiated access to airfields in Honduras and established a regional military training center for Central American forces, principally directed at improving fighting forces of the Salvadoran military.

In 1994, the Honduran Rights Commission outlined the torture and disappearance of at least 184 political opponents.

It also specifically accused John Negroponte of a number of human rights violations. Yet, back in his office that day in 1982, John Negroponte assured us that he had no idea what had happened to the women we were looking for. I had to wait 13 years to find out. In an interview with the Baltimore Sun in1996 Jack Binns, Negroponte's predecessor as US ambassador in Honduras, told how a group of Salvadorans, among whom were the women we had been looking for, were captured on April 22, 1981 and savagely tortured by the DNI, the Honduran Secret Police, before being placed in helicopters of the Salvadoran military. After take off from the airport in Tegucigalpa, the victims were thrown out of the helicopters. Binns told the Baltimore Sun that the North American authorities were well aware of what had happened and that it was a grave violation of human rights. But it was seen as part of Ronald Reagan's counterinsurgency policy.

Ya see, here lies the problem.