You come home from work one day to your many generations’ family property where you have lived all of your life and find that a team is removing your belongings to the front lawn. And when you indignantly demand to know what is going on, two policemen and the county sheriff advise you that the new owner is taking possession. You protest adamantly that you never sold the property to anyone; this is your home! The sheriff then shows you a folder with a deed for the property that indicates that you had signed a power of attorney to another person, one you know but never trusted, and that, under its terms, he had the right to convey your property, and had done so to the “new owner.” You are then, of course, astounded, proclaiming loudly that you have never signed such a power of attorney, and that any claim to have done so was fraudulent, and the purported signature is a forgery.
We want to denounce to international human rights organizations, to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to United Nations Human Rights, that the campesino and union leaders in the city of Santa Cruz are being threatened, intimidated, persecuted by fascist hordes of the Pro Santa Cruz Civic Committee, by people who want to promote a rupture of the democratic order in the country. And it is in this context that we call on you to visit our country urgently, because we want to point out that the human rights of a population that opposes the indefinite strike, of a population that is crying out for work, are being completely violated. A population that is crying out to generate economic resources for their families.
Since October 20, the conservative opposition sectors in Bolivia’s Santa Cruz department have been organizing different protest actions against progressive President Luis Arce and the government of the ruling Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party. Their primary demand is that the Population and Housing Census be carried out in the first semester of 2023 and not in 2024. Since their protests began, the national government has been repeatedly calling on them to engage in dialogue. Nevertheless, the sectors have been rejecting all attempts of negotiation and insisting that the national government submit to their technically impossible demand. The far-right opposition leader and governor of Santa Cruz, Luis Fernando Camacho, the president of the Pro Santa Cruz Civic Committee, Rómulo Calvo, and the rector of the Autonomous University Gabriel René Moreno (UAGRM), Vicente Cuéllar, called for an indefinite strike in the department to force the government to give in to their demand.
The delegation, headed by Assistant Secretary of the State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian A. Nichols, arrived in the capital Port-au-Prince on Wednesday October 12, and left the next day. During its two-day visit, the US delegates met with PM Henry, as well as leaders of the Montana Group. Nichols, through a tweet, reported that he “met with the Montana Group to discuss the urgent need to address the cholera outbreak and fuel blockade that are impeding the humanitarian response,” adding that “stakeholders must urgently develop consensus on an accord leading to improved security, elections, and prosperity for all Haitians.” Nichols also reported he met with “Haiti’s Government leaders, including Dr. Ariel Henry, to reaffirm our commitment to help address the cholera epidemic and the insecurity impeding that response.”
The seamless official policy of the Trump and Biden administrations has been that Juan Guaidó is Venezuela’s “interim president.” The US is thusly caught in the self-inflicted fiction of having to deal with a powerless puppet because it does not accept the democratically elected Nicolás Maduro. Although Trump has at least retreated to Mar-a-Lago, Guaidó keeps on asking to be invited to the party, much to Biden’s embarrassment. A related conundrum of its own making is the US sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry and at the same time needing the fuel. It wasn’t so long ago that Venezuela supplied the US with a significant amount of its daily petroleum consumption. Now Uncle Sam finds himself confronted with price inflation at the gas pump and the inevitability of negotiating with a government it does not recognize.
The prosecutors and judges who intend to politically destroy the current Vice President of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, have had their shot backfire. Those who, after years of unsuccessful judicial and media set-ups, sometimes forged in the very same office of the former right-wing president Mauricio Macri, are now asking for 12 years in prison and to perpetually disqualify her from holding public office. Charges that venal judges and Macri’s cronies would be happy to impose on her as a sentence. They already have it written, thundered Cristina, who made a memorable plea via digital networks from her office as president of the Senate, when the judge denied her the right to speak to refute elements recently introduced by the prosecutors and never previously aired in the process.
Imran Khan, a former cricket star who went into politics and became Prime Minister of Pakistan, had been ousted by bribing and threatening politicians of his coalition to turn against him. Khan had developed good relations with China and Russia and was against allowing the U.S. military to use Pakistan as a base for attacks in Afghanistan. The new Pakistani government under Shehbaz Sharif has turned out to follow opposite policies. But it is increasingly unpopular. Imran Khan has used his popularity to raise a public ruckus against the ruling elite and the military and judicial forces behind it. He and his PTI party have good chances to win in the next election. U.S. media reporting about Khan is thus conflicted.
The top Latin America advisor for US President Joe Biden, Juan Sebastián González, threateningly said of Colombia’s new left-wing president: “40 years ago, the United States would have done everything possible to prevent the election of Gustavo Petro, and once in power it would have done almost everything possible to sabotage his government.” González is the Western hemisphere director for the US National Security Council (NSC). He previously worked in the State Department and NSC in the Barack Obama administration. González made these incendiary comments in Spanish in an interview with the Colombian media. Obliquely acknowledging the long history of US meddling in Latin America’s sovereign internal affairs, González added, “Those are the policies of the Cold War, that to a certain point today for some people are a justification from revisionist perspectives that characterize the policy of the United States in the context of a local manifestation of an empire.”
Unfortunately, the failure of the recent attempt to create an armed conflict in the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region (GBAR) has not dampened Washington’s ardor in searching for ways to destabilize the situation in Central Asia and in creating an additional inconvenience for Russia, which at present is conducting a special military operation to de-Nazify Ukraine, by creating a “second front.” The United States, to this end, continues to use its sponsored NGOs, media and US intelligence capabilities to foment old conflicts in the region to put pressure on regional security, with a subsequent threat to Russia, as well as China.
By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers for Popular Resistance. The United States has perfected the art of regime change operations. The US is the largest empire in world history with more than 1,000 military bases and troops operating throughout the world. In addition to military force, the US uses the soft power of regime change, often through 'Color Revolutions.' The US has been building its empire since the Civil War era, but it has been in the post-World War II-time period that it has perfected regime change operations.US military presence around the world Have the people of the United States been the victims of regime change operations at home? Have the wealthiest and the security state created a government that serves them, rather than the people? To answer these questions, we begin by examining how regime change works and then look at whether those ingredients are being used domestically.
Gustavo Petro’s victory in Sunday’s Colombian Presidential election, marking the first time Bogotá has elected a left-wing head of state, was not the only far-reaching geopolitical event to recently take place involving Latin America. A week prior to the former guerrilla fighter’s electoral success, President Nicolás Maduro of neighbouring Venezuela paid an official two day visit to Iran where he signed an official 20-year cooperation agreement with Iranian head of state Ayatollah Khameini – a deal intended to counter the wide-ranging US sanctions targeting both Caracas and Tehran. With one of Petro’s Presidential aims being to develop further relations with Venezuela however, his incoming Presidency has undoubtedly already been placed in the sights of the regime change lobby, wary that friendly relations between Bogota, Caracas and Tehran, will undermine US-NATO hegemony from South America all the way to the Middle East.
When Serbia’s government was overthrown in 2000, it was the first example of a successful US-backed neoliberal color revolution. The tactics used in this regime-change operation were subsequently repeated in countries around the world. Journalist Brian Mier spoke with Serbian activist Ivan Zlatić, a member of the presidency of the Party of the Radical Left, about this foundational experience. Zlatić explained how regime-change operatives intentionally “provoke violence” and then capitalize on the response of the government to discredit it and demand that it be toppled. “Serbia was the color revolution zero,” Zlatić said.
Manuel Pérez-Rocha at Inequality.org just wrote a piece "Ousted Pakistani Leader Was Challenging Investment Treaties That Give Corporations Excessive Power: Mexico and many other countries are facing anti-democratic corporate lawsuits like the case that pushed Khan to withdraw from international investment agreements." He notes: The parliament of Pakistan recently ousted Prime Minister Imran Khan in a no-confidence vote. The reasons for the former cricket star’s political downfall are not entirely clear. His economic policies were a mixed bag at best, but he deserves credit for one thing: he’d taken a bold stand against international investment agreements that give transnational corporations excessive power over national governments. This piece led noted author and activist Maude Barlow to tweet: "Wonder if this is why he was thrown over…"
After a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan and loss of credibility over Ukraine, the era of US unipolarity seems to be entering its terminal phase, marked by lashing out ferociously in all directions. The most recent of these offensives occurred last week when the government of Pakistan alleged that Washington was trying to engineer regime change in Islamabad. This time the US was caught red handed. The claim was not made via a leak or a fringe observer, but by the prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, himself. While the US State Department has denied any involvement, the political drama has only just begun. Emerging from a crucial meeting of Afghanistan’s neighbors, China’s top diplomat took a public whack at Washington’s behavior. Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that China will not allow the US to drag smaller nations into conflict and sharply rebuked the ‘US Cold War mentality.’
Feeling his oats after effusive adulation from leaders of NATO – and Japan at the G-7 summit – Biden gave us the Mother of All Faux Pax this afternoon in Poland. Echoing imperious King Henry II of England, Biden uttered the equivalent of "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" … or troublesome president? The priest, of course, was Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. The president is Vladimir Putin, who had already warned a complete break in Russia-U.S. relations. Referring in all but name to President Putin, Biden said, "This man cannot remain in power." Reminder that should not be necessary: Prudent presidents have been reluctant to say that of the leader of other countries – sometimes even when the two are at war.