Hugo Chavez:A true and passionate Latin American leader.
Latin America was always material for big movies and great stories of literature of South America. It's always been the cradle for big revolutionary leaders such as Pancho Villa, Emiliano Zapata, Salvadore Allende, Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra. Always unsuccessful but their work rarely finishes because The United States of America always interferes. Chavez was inspired by all these leaders. (11 March, 2013 Two Venezuelan diplomats were deported from USA).
Hugo Chavez was born in 28th July, 1954 in a small town forgotten and remote. This town had no electricity. His great grandfather was a Commander in the army, Pedro Peres Delgado.
He considered himself blessed as this was Peru's Independence Day, and he felt something of his importance as a child. He was excited to visit a relative in the next town, and was amazed by their generator. His childhood was poor, and his mother and father were primary teachers.
In the family book collection he found a book of the Liberators, and he began to be a reader of the Latin American leaders like Simon Bolivar. He read about Neruda, a celebrity Chilean writer. All the books he remembered in his head, and the American writer and Nobel Prize winner Walt Whitman.
Walt Whitman (1819 - 1892) was an American poet, journalist, and essayist. The work for which he is best known is "Leaves of Grass," which has been controversial and banned. He has been called the greatest American poet of his time.
The story starts in Venezuela was the when Juan Vicente Gomez was a dictator for 36 years, but he influenced Chavez because his image was distorted by the influence of the rich people, and USA. Chavez admired him as a great man, even though he never met him. He liked to listen to the old farmers and the old people.
Chavez sold sweets and fruit in the street to help the family budget. He was incensed by the poverty of the people.
The Church was a big influence, and he was a popular alter boy. He played with the bells. Everyone recognised his cheeky calling of the bells. His mother influenced too by his her morality. He wanted to be a baseball champion, but he saw many injustices and the abuse of the working class people.
He was a cadet in the military army to be a baseball player, and he was sent to study in Peru in 1974. He was young and enthusiastic and learnt to play soccer. He met the President of Peru, Juan Velasco Alvarado. The social change gave opportunity for the workers in Peru, but America didn't like this progress and he died mysteriously! (A military secret).
He then saw the corruption of “democracy” and American corporations and the minority of white people and discrimination and lack of equal opportunity. He wanted to secretly get people to love Venezuela through the through the Bolivar Alliance for the Americas.
He had a strong admiration for Fidel Castro and for Che Guevarra. The more important thing that he was a commander in the army and had a comfortable life and elite status. He could have been selfish and closed the eyes. He studied a lot, and he was intelligent, astute, cunning, athletic and young. He was passionate for the love of his country.
When Allende of Chile died, he asked if he was elected then why did the army kill him?
Carlos Andrez Perez was a corrupt president of Venezuela and the revolution to remove him failed. Chavez was two years in prison, along with his friends and his political party. CARACAZO was the name of the day of rebellion. He served two years (out of 10 year sentence) because the next president released him.
Campaign against corruption
All the mining companies and corporations brought their own workers and this make him so angry. Everyone knows the skills of the American government. If you a re good leader in South America, they distort your name and defame the good quality thinking of the leaders. America always looks for leaders that cave into them and allow the corruption to enter. They sell the tools and arms to the terrorists, and Chavez discovered this. He had a vision of the dream of Bolivar, and he was NOT a good manager of money. That was his defect. His strength was intrinsic, and his passion. He discovered many traitors in his own group,his political party! Chavez was not the perfect leader. He worked from 7am to 1 am in the morning, and he used to drink 30 cups of coffee per day – addicted. He suffered a lot of stress. He travelled a lot.
He provided free hospitals for the poor people, and health care cover, free schools, free food for the kids, public housing for the poor, and he had many envious enemies. He taught ethics and morals. He taught compulsory patriotism and values that the country never had before. People were used to seeing corruption. He taught by good example. He nationalised the petrol. Venezuela has 300 years of petrol. This is not for sale. He knew the petrol would not last.
He was hated by foreign investors and the very rich exploitative people who used to pay low wages, not enough to survive. This was part of the revolution, looking for social justice. He wanted to wake up and remind the people of the vision of Simon Bolivar. The universities wanted to air-brush the memory of Simon Bolivar, and his vision of a unified South America – the Gran Colombia (the original name of South America). America Vespucio was writer who was a drafted of maps and put the name “America”.
Chavez couldn't control the mafia, the terrorists, the drug and weapon traffickers. There was so many stresses trying to control the borders, the schools and the task of unifying South America. He taught not to steal, but the generational fault was to continue to be criminals with the “DNA” of the conquistadors! The generational wrongs was in the blood. They enjoyed the crimes. He was a Christian and tried to change the people.
The future generations will remember him. There was a 7 day procession after he died. America didn't let him finish what he started.
In Australia the principle is of open house for foreigners. In Venezuela the nationality is not for sale. Anyone can be “Australian”, but in Venezuela the jobs are for their own people.
He had the skill of keeping secret the country's reserves of petrol. He was Latin America, and passionate.
He had a great gift of speech. He said things as they were. Diplomacy was not his skill, and he didn't follow protocol. He was not scared to speak the truth. He would swear in front of the cameras to protect the poor people.
Chavez was a friend of Gadaffi and he knew America wanted to take the petrol of Venezuela. He gave an award to Gadaffi for the petrol business, and he protected Palestine.
Many people thought he was crazy and eccentric. If you are opposite America they make a scandal for you. He was not a good manager and there was corruption in his own party. However, he was NOT a dictator but was elected 4 times -with big margins. He unified all Latin America and created a fraternity. He gave money to Bolivia and Peru and Haiti for petrol and medicine and professional assistance. His vision was for all South America to be one Bolivariano country. American wanted them separate and dis empowered. The United States accused him of theft, but it's not true.
Writer Mario Vagas Llosa wrote an article about the death of the Chavez, and he criticized his poor manager. He was a big “Caudillo” (leader) but poor financial manager. Garcia Marquez wrote an article “Sun of your bravery” regarding Chavez -the “Two Chavez” in one. He wasn't as despotic as claimed by The United States of America. He was a typical happy “Creole” (Criollo).
Why did millions of people go to the funeral? If he wasn't a good leader, why would world leaders to to the funeral? President Obama didn't go. USA ("the Empire") wants elections now, but it is not their country!
Now he's dead, there's a plan to mummify his body and be on public display, like a freak show! He created a museum for the revolution, but would not expect to be an exhibit.
Photo: Three countries united, part of the Cono ( Cradle) Sur:
Three socialist leaders of the ConoSur (South Corner): Presidente Lula e os presidentes da Brazil, the late Néstor Kirchner, e da Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, durante reunião tripartite .
Populations have been living around Lake Titicaca for 10,000 years, dating back to the Archaic period. The first communities appeared around Titicaca in 1,200 BC and since then have increased in population and have become more dependent on its water for their livelihood for agriculture and navigation.
Titicaca, the world's highest navigable lake, which straddles the border between Bolivia and Peru, is a place venerated by the ancient Incas who ruled throughout South America from the 13th to the mid-16th centuries.
Living beside such a large body of water, people sometimes take for granted the effects pollution can have.
Lake Titicaca region experiences a high variability in terms of its weather patterns. There is a high level of uncertainty, and risk, living under such conditions.
The lack of sewage treatment plants around the lake causes most waste to be put directly into Titicaca and, as a result, pollution levels have been rising over the decades, thereby contaminating water.
In June 2006, a health ministry-appointed committee of experts sent to the area of Cohana, (Bolivia - a breathtaking 3,800 meters (12,500 feet) above sea level) found "the potential presence of pathogens such as bacteria, viruses or parasites" in the bay, making it the most polluted sector in Titicaca.
"Biological activity is directly affected by the water's lack of oxygen: fish that generally were everywhere now are dead," one study said.
Other sources of degradation come from the cattle industry that surrounds the lake and the loss of soil due to their impact and, with regards to the fishing industry, the introduction of exotic species and the overfishing of both those and indigenous species has left the lake with smaller and smaller fish.
In the rainy seasons of 1982-3 and 1989-90, extreme droughts caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to the agricultural industry, both crop and animal.
The years in between experienced a higher than average rainfall and culminated in the severe floods of 1986-7 causing, again, over a hundred million dollars of damage to not only the agricultural industry, but to infrastructure as well.
The stress under which the people live does not create an environment conducive to awareness regarding pollution and sustainability. The two nations, Bolivia and Peru, have had negative economic growth rates over the last 10 years.
More than 30 thousand informal unregistered small scale mining operations near the world’s highest navigable lake are causing terrible pollution to both it and surrounding rivers.
Lake Titicaca possesses the continent’s largest source of fresh water, and its preservation and protection are likely to be vital for the future of the region. The increases in the lake’s levels of pollution are alarming.
Among the many towns living off Lake Titicaca, Pajchiri Bay is the most polluted with contaminated water, fish and plants.
Officials in both Peru and Bolivia have agreed to work together to clean up the contamination of the bay after a recent investigation of the waters.
For the second straight week (6th April, 2009) Lake Titicaca (Puno Peru) took the No. 1 spot in Group F of the New Seven Wonders of Nature campaign, according to the latest ranking of contest organizer, the New 7 Wonders Foundation.
With this world rating, let’s hope it gives the Lake’s two custodians, Peru and Bolivia, the incentive to continue to work together and restore one of Natures natural wonders.
See also: Peru, Bolivia to clean Lake Titicaca of 22 Nov 08, 30,000 illegal mines pollute Lake Titicaca of 22 Sep 08, Case Study Transboundary Dispute Resolution: Lake Titicaca (pdf, 102K), Peru: Lake Titicaca leads new seven wonders contest of 6 Apr 09, Bolivia's Lake Titicaca strangled" of 3 Aug 07.
A few snippets
The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.' Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.
Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.
Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?' Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again.
The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance.
'Democracy' had prevailed.
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries.
Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.
It never happened...
It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.' It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.
The Invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
Pinter does not add the other crimes, white collar crimes, emanating from New York and London, the crimes of milking and debasing the financial systems of the free world.
Now Obama will replace Bush, Brown has replaced Blair, but the past sins remain. I have no doubt Obama will try to solve both the energy crisis and the financial crisis by a massive investment in renewable energy projects, and Brown is strutting his stuff as the saviour of the world banking system. They will both hope that we can forget Iraq etc, but should we?
Exerpts plus comments posted by Frank Holland