Right-wing revolt threatens Bolivia

.

Right-wing revolt threatens Bolivia "The imperialist project is to carve up Bolivia and carve up South America" by Federico Fuentes

Global Research, April 28, 2008

Green Left Weekly

"Bolivia is on the verge of exploding", Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned on April 21.

Speaking on the eve of an extraordinary summit of the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA — the alliance made of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Dominica) that was partly called to discuss the situation in Bolivia, Chavez stated the landlocked Andean country was "once again under fire — for daring to dream of retaking the path of dignity, liberty and real independence".

"The empire wants to put a brake on the integration of South America", Chavez argued, and has chosen Bolivia as its immediate target. "Today the cause of Bolivia is the cause of the dignified people of Latin America who fight for unity and liberty." Chavez said that, "We are and will continue to be with Bolivia and we extend our hand and our heart" to the Bolivian people.

Illegal referendum

At the heart of the latest round of tensions in Bolivia are the plans by the elite in the eastern department of Santa Cruz (a stronghold of Bolivia's oligarchy) to push ahead with a referendum on "autonomy" scheduled for May 4.

Despite the referendum being declared illegal by the national electoral court, the Santa Cruz electoral court has stated it will press ahead with the vote, which many fear is aimed at fracturing the country.

The right-wing campaign of destabilisation against the indigenous-led government of President Evo Morales — which the referendum is one component of — has intensified in the last few weeks.

"Leaving clear the success of the bunkering-down by the business sectors in Santa Cruz", wrote Pablo Stefanoni on April 19 in the Argentine daily Clarin, "Morales yesterday had to pull out his vice minister for land, Alejandro Almaraz, from the Bolivian Chaco". "Days before, the functionary tried without luck to enter the hacienda of the US citizen Ronald Larsen in order to verify compliance of his land in regards to its economic and social function, but was received with stones and armed picket lines, and had to take refuge in military quarters."

Stefanoni also reported that the president of the Chamber of Exporters of the East, Ramiro Monje, threatened that "after May 4, another economic model will begin to function".

Sectors of large agribusiness have been on a war footing against the government following recent moves to restrict exports of certain food products — in order to tackle food shortages provoked by agribusiness.

While loosening some of the restrictions, Morales threatened to nationalise companies that "are provoking a bosses lockout" by enforcing a holiday on May 4.

Defending unity

An April 24 ABI news service article reported that the commander of the Bolivian Naval Force, Vice Admiral Jose Luis Cavas Villegas, said that "we are the people in arms, in order to defend the internal security of our population, the Armed Forces are with the people … behind the [national flag], we will defend unity all our lives".

Through the build-up of tensions, the position of the government, the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS — Morales's party) and the social movements aligned with the government has oscillated between threatening to stop the referendum going ahead to dismissing it as simply an opinion poll.

For now, it seems rallies will be held on May 4 in favour of "national unity" in all capital cities — except in Santa Cruz, in order to avoid confrontations. Nevertheless, the opposition have established "civil guards" to defend the polling booths in the department, just in case.

Since Morales inauguration in January 2006, the economic and political elites whose power has been threatened by the rise of Bolivia's first indigenous government — despite the impoverished indigenous people making up around two thirds of the population — have entrenched themselves in the east of Bolivia.

'Democratic and cultural revolution'

As the Morales government has continued to take steps forward in his self-proclaimed "democratic and cultural revolution" — through the nationalisation of gas, the convocation of a constituent assembly to "re-found" Bolivia and the implementation of important social programs aimed at tackling poverty and centuries of oppression — the elite have stepped up their campaign of destablisation.

In particular, the government's land reform, which has redistributed hundreds of thousands of hectares of land owned by the state or large landowners to poor campesinos (peasants), has aroused opposition. Key leaders of the push for "autonomy" in Santa Cruz are also large landowners.

Behind the calls for autonomy are economic interests hoping to give greater power to the opposition-controlled department governments on questions of control over natural resources and productive land, the majority of which is located in the east.

Bolivia sits on top of the second largest gas reserves in South America, after Venezuela.

By pushing for autonomy the elite hopes to weaken and bring down the popular Morales government. However, their campaign is also part of laying the groundwork for a plan B — the break up of Bolivia through the creation of an independent state in the east, taking with them the majority Bolivia's natural resources.

Under this banner, they have also sought, successfully, to unite large sections of the predominately white population of the east against the central government. Tapping into a long held sentiment for autonomy, and whipping up racism and fears of an "indigenous revenge", they have been able to mobilise large numbers in the east around the "autonomy" demand.

A recent poll by Equipos Mora showed that in Santa Cruz, 84% of the population say they will vote in the referendum, with 76% in favour of the autonomy statutes.

Solidarity

Pointing to the declaration of solidarity and support for the people of Bolivia, approved in the ALBA summit, Chavez stated that it expressed "the will … of millions of Bolivians, Nicaraguans, Cubans and Venezuelans."

During the summit, Chavez proposed the creation of a defence council and military force of the ALBA countries, "because our enemy is the same, the empire".

The declaration states that the nations in ALBA "reject the destabilisation plans that aim to attack the peace and unity of Bolivia". It stated ALBA nations would not recognise "any juridical figure that aims to break away from the Bolivian national state and violates the territorial integrity of Bolivia".

"The imperialist project", Morales said, "is to try and carve up Bolivia and with that carve up South America, because it has converted itself into the epicentre of the great changes that are advancing on the world scale". "I believe in the consciousness of the people and the wisdom of our social forces and of the indigenous movement, and above all of the patriots that are fighting for the dignity and sovereignty of our people."

To add your name to an international statement in solidarity with Bolivia, visit http://todosconbolivia.org. Federico Fuentes is editor of http://boliviarising.blogspot.com.

Federico Fuentes is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Federico Fuentes

.

Osama, too good to be true. Part 1,2&3

.

.

ISRAEL E NEWS

Osama, too good to be true. Pt 1. Osama, too good to be true. Pt 2 Osama, too good to be true. Pt 3

Filed under Opinion Editorials, Terrorism around the world, Conspiracies, USA foreign policy Monday, February 18, 2008 By: Shoher, Obadiah

---

Why terrorism is not ubiquitous? It takes no brains or training to rent an apartment, turn gas on in the kitchen stove, and blow the building. It takes no brains and almost no training to rent a truck, buy three tons of nitrate ammonium fertilizer, mix it with you-know-what, park the truck at any building and blow it up.

It takes only minor brains and moderate training to derail a train transporting chlorine cisterns. Terrorists can legally purchase weapons and equally simply procure C-4 explosive by registering a demolition company.

Propane gas cylinders can be purchased in hundreds from multiple vendors without drawing anyone’s attention.

FBI works very well and intercepts many terrorist attempts. But the described grassroots terrorism is suitable for two- or three-men cells and usually cannot be detected beforehand.

One explanation for the lack of grassroots terrorism is the built-in moral prohibition.

The US Army, for example, can feasibly take over the country, like the many coups in other countries, but it doesn’t. Criminal gangs can kidnap local politicians to exchange them for jailed members, as German insurgents kidnapped Peter Lorenz in 1975, but such cases are few. Population of populist countries is widely conformist to the extent of sending their children to Vietnam and Iraq wars, and is not prone to confronting the government.

Social security destroyed the most important reason for people to care about their children: financial. People don’t rely on children for the old-age security. In the absence of financial bonds, moral issues are not strong enough to make the parents cut off their child’s finger instead of allowing him into the army for a senseless war.

People are afraid to go against the ruling system on their own but assemble in groups – that is where security services detect them. Many people support terrorists but few can go out and kill by themselves as lone wolves. Three-hundred million strong American nation produces a handful of psycho murderers, and its five millions Muslims are statistically unlikely to produce many suicide terrorists. But not even one?

It’s hard to comprehend why, despite the abundant Internet indoctrination, no man stood up against the system by terrorist means. Raskolnikoffs can be rare because they infringe on the universal moral tenets, but “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” and the high enough goals justify the means; there should be no shortage of lone terrorists.

People don’t detest terrorism the way they detest murder; terrorism is a tool only, and can bear good fruits of freedom as well as sour fruits. Osama’s efforts are doomed. The freedom fighters like Thomas Jefferson used violence to break the constraints on a fully-fledged new order.

Osama misuses terrorism to create a new order; such an approach cannot work in the West. Terrorism has some potential in Muslim states saturated with Islamic opposition; Osama can terrorize the despotic governments into allowing the Islamists to seize power in free elections. Even in the Muslim world, terrorism has no long-term potential: Iranians, for example, grew opposed to the ayatollahs in three decades.

Terrorists long for state sponsors not only for money and weapons, but predominantly for psychological reasons: the support reassures them. It’s not even about safety; many terrorists are ready to die.

Their problem is deep human discomfort of confronting a towering entity alone.

If the above insight is true – and no other concept explains the lack of ubiquitous terrorism – then Al Qaeda emerges as an exceedingly odd organization. Al Qaeda has never had a state sponsor. No meaningful terrorist group ever existed without support of a state or state-like entity.

From medieval Assassins with their own mountainous quasi-state to Red Army Faction supported by German Stasi, all terrorists relied on Big Brothers. Al Qaeda purchased safe havens in Sudan and Afghanistan, but never had a Big Brother to rely on.

Either Al Qaeda is a historically unique organization – an unlikely assumption – or it’s not a terrorist powerhouse.

Part2

The operation that would qualify Al Qaeda into the top tier of terrorists is 9/11. The official version contains many incongruent details, including puddles of molten steel which doesn’t yet melt at 1500F – the maximum temperature of kerosene burning, collapsing of the tower structures much after the kerosene burned away and in the absence of major afterfires, and the absurd story of Boeing plane’s wings liquefied before crushing into the Pentagon. It matters most that no terrorist group claimed the attack. That never happened before for any large general-purpose attack. On the contrary, often several groups claim one attack.

Terrorism is about publicity, and refraining from publicizing one’s involvement in the major terrorist act is senseless. Terrorist leaders do not fear retaliation, but long for propaganda effect. It is unbelievable that no group claimed 9/11. Even in the doubtful videotapes, Osama never claimed organizing the event. He only praised it, as he praised many other terrorist acts both before and after 9/11.

Osama's praise is unrelated to his participation or even to Muslim involvement: he congratulated the Chechen fighters for terrorist attack on Moscow Nord-Ost theatre, which is widely viewed as KGB/FSB ploy to implicate the Chechens. Osama’s praise for 9/11 came out only on October 7, almost a month after the attack – an inexplicable delay – and unusually for Osama stressed liberation of Palestine before Mecca’s.

The US government attributes to Osama only a few days’ advance knowledge of the attack; that’s not planning. Curiously, Osama's family in Saudi Arabia denounced him four days after the attack – three weeks before his first comment on 9/11; under the American pressure, they somehow knew the culprit before he stepped forward. Osama was quick to claim responsibility for attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and even claimed credit for the USS Cole attack which he didn't organize.

Islamic terrorist groups often claim credit for others' attacks – a practice facilitated by cross-membership; a whole bunch of terrorist organizations claimed three bombings in Taba in 2004. It is unbelievable that Osama refrained from claiming 9/11 attack fearing American retaliation. The very choice of date, the 9/11 for 911 emergency phone number, smacks of American black humour.

The Spain train bombings are also odd. Anyone living in Spain knows that local trains never arrive on time. The four trains just couldn't converge at the train station to blow the roof. The attack was planned by someone living in a country where timely arrival of trains is a norm; that disqualifies Israel. All the suspects killed themselves rather than be arrested by Spanish police.

That's odd, since the terrorists could use the court hearings as media tribune and hoped to be exchanged in prisoner swap. Police found a lot of unused explosives; why didn't the terrorists use them for train bombings but left that overwhelming evidence? Why did they stay in Spain after the bombings? No working relationship is proved between the dead terrorists and Al Qaeda.

Another Al Qaeda-related attack, that of the shoe bomber, is odd beyond measure. Jose Padilla might be an imbecile but someone sane had to assist him. Anyone who helped him to prepare the bomb understood that such bomb cannot cause a plane crash. The shoe bomber's case smacks of a trailer show for 9/11.

A string of assaults is atypical for terrorists who have to go deep underground after strikes, but is extremely typical of sabotage planned by secret services. For example, Israeli secret service apparently organized a string of double murders in the settlements to greatly terrorize the local Jews, too active politically. In a typical case, two family members would be murdered ostensibly by Arabs in unrelated incidents within a short time – the very improbability of such event causing terror.

Then of course there's Padilla's acquaintance McVeigh who surprisingly demolished a huge building with low-yield ammonium explosive, but that's another story.

Germans set Reichstag on fire to implicate fellow communists. Jews killed Rabin to implicate the right-wingers. Russians blew the apartment houses in Moscow to launch a retaliatory war in Chechnya.

Staging an attack is a historically standard way of forging a casus belli.

Part 3

Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization in the sense of regularly committing terrorist acts with its own cadres. Rather, Al Qaeda is a venture firm engaged in seed financing, superfluous training, PR, and logistics. In return for those services, Al Qaeda shares in the terrorist acts committed by its client groups. Sometimes, Al Qaeda claims participation; that’s mostly happens when grassroots terrorists without an organization of their own perpetrate the attack. More often, Al Qaeda merely lauds the terrorist act, as happened with 9/11, without hijacking the laurels. Osama might be fearless, but he is a not a soldier - merely a rich Arab who brought the concepts of Western capitalism into the field of anti-Western terrorism. Let’s look at details.

Hollywood horror movies endow aggressors with bizarre features; media treat terrorists similarly. But they are not bizarre exceptions from human mentality. They are normal religious nationalists willing to die for their cause but not seeking death as members of some death cult; Osama evades American assassination attempts. In regular armies, soldiers undertake practically suicide missions defending their comrades and country; terrorists operate similarly. People who strongly identify with ideas might die physically but continue living in their ideas; shahedeen die, but live on as part of the ummah. Neither are terrorists monsters; thinking of 9/11 civilian death toll, recall fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo. The absence of mass following among Muslims doesn’t prove Osama wrong: John Brown failed to rally a significant number of slaves but nevertheless greatly advanced abolitionist cause.

Westerners despise Osama for barbaric intolerance. Civilized, affluent people are afraid to show intolerance because it endangers their lifestyle: the victims of their intolerance can strike back. The people preoccupied with pursuit of material wealth abandon the fight for moral values and rationalize their cowardice by abandoning moral absolutes. But the entire human system of values is calibrated with moral values. People who don’t pursue moral imperatives, pursue the other things even less. They want welfare rather than work, submission to government rather than responsibility.

Osama is highly responsible. Westerners seek to enjoy every moment of their lives, and grow impatient. They want all policies to bring immediate results. Osama, in the service of eternal God, is very patient – not because he is superhuman, but because he cannot change the political situation immediately. Neither are his means outdated. Westerners launched massive wars in Algiers, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq but believe the age of war is over. The inhabitants of pax Romana and Peace of Westphalia worlds thought similarly; Jews in 1939 thought that ethnic or religious wars are unthinkable anymore. Osama is way more realistic.

Taking the fight into America is not apocalyptic lunacy, but the only viable way to win the war. The Soviets lost the war in Afghanistan despite their cruelty because mujahedeen had safe havens in Pakistan; they could regroup, rearm, and relax. Israel similarly loses against the West Bank terrorists by allowing them safe havens in Jenin and elsewhere. Osama has to attack America if he is to deny his enemy a place to relax; continuous strain breaks the will to fight.

Osama is not a genius who rallied Muslim nations. The Muslim community is too huge, diverse, and dispersed to feel communal bonds. Other Muslims didn't help their Indonesian coreligionists hit by tsunami, and few Muslims came to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invaders. The seventh-century jihad was waged for spoils rather than religion, and since then Arabs showed no religious zeal to fight. Arabs want the US visas rather than Palestinian statehood. Osama attracted into his ranks one thousandth of one percent of the world Muslims. Many more admire him as a symbol with no intention of joining him. Osama draws adventurers rather than Muslims.

That's not Osama's fault, but human. Rabbi Kahane similarly failed to gather a significant number of American Jews to confront Russia over the emigration restrictions on Soviet Jews. Osama was even less successful in garnering worldwide Muslim support for Palestinian insurgency. He repeatedly condemned Muslim governments and clergy for their failure to channel military support to Palestinians, and his early darling Hamas proved a disappointment unconcerned with global Islamic struggle.

Obadiah Shoher is the author of "Samson Blinded, a Machiavellian view of the Middle East conflict," and the accompanying blog.Samson Blinded, which advocates a ultra-hard-line Israeli approach to Arab nations. Shoher denies ethnic-blind democracy and argues for expulsion of Arabs from Israel. He rejects democratic process, and calls for violent opposition to police efforts at removing the illegal settlements, dismantling the Israeli army and fully relying on nuclear response to counter possible Arab aggression Shoher's real identity is unknown but he is believed to be an Israeli politician, writing under the pen name, "Obadiah Shoher".



.