Communists at Forefront of Struggle to Defend Syria’s Sovereignty

“We cannot imagine any future in Syria but a victorious one. We have no other choice but victory.”

Source

The following is an interview with Adel Omar, from the foreign bureau of the Syrian Communist Party-Bakdash. The interview was conducted following an international peace conference held in Istanbul and Antakya, Turkey, April 25-28 and was published in the May issue of the Communist Party of Turkey’s monthly publication. The translation from Turkish is by Liberation News.

Can you describe the position of the Syrian Communist Party toward the imperialist aggression against Syria?

First and foremost, as the Syrian Communist Party, we believe that the course of events in Syria is neither a revolution nor a civil war. It is very clear that what has been taking place in Syria has been in accordance with the imperialist plans. It is not possible for us to define a process where NATO has been involved as a revolution. Besides, it is not the case that different sectors of the people of Syria are fighting one another. On the contrary, our people are resisting the imperialist forces together.

It is true that the people of Syria have demands and needs that need to be met, but the way to achieve this is not through destroying everything that belongs to the state of Syria. At the moment, our country is under attack, and achieving unity among the people to defend our homeland is what needs to be done first. At this point, we think it is especially crucial for the government to respond to the demands and the needs of the people. In order to be able to establish a solid resistance front against the imperialist attack, we believe a top priority for the government is to provide for the basic needs of the people, including food and medicine. Only then can the struggle of the people against imperialism be unrelenting.

It can be said that the Assad government partially backed off from its neoliberal tendencies once the imperialist attack against Syria got going. What does the Syrian Communist Party think of the policies of the Assad government? Do you think that the recent changes in their policies are satisfactory?

When we evaluate the 10-year period before the aggression toward Syria, we see that the Syrian government made grave mistakes in the economic area. By choosing neoliberal economic policies, it opened the Syrian market to foreign imports, especially Turkish and Qatari products. As a result, hundreds of factories and workshops shut down and millions of workers lost their jobs.

In fact, there was not a substantial change in these neoliberal policies when the imperialist intervention started. As the Syrian CP, we think that the adoption of these neoliberal economic policies was a fatal mistake. We believe that the solution needs to start by putting an end to these policies.

In addition, a war is going on in Syria. We are facing multifaceted and serious problems. It is important to realize that it is not only the Syrian army that is resisting against the imperialist-backed foreign forces. Ordinary Syrians are also fighting. It would not have been possible for the army to resist for two years against such an assault otherwise.

With this in mind, it is critical that the government support the people through economic policies in order for the popular resistance to be able to survive. But, unfortunately, it is difficult to say that the government realizes this fact even now. They more or less continue with the neoliberal policies. As the Syrian CP, we believe the biggest risk factor for the Syrian resistance is the economy.

Do the terrorist groups operating under the umbrella of the so-called Free Syrian Army target the Syrian Communist Party or similar groups of the resistance?

Yes, of course, and this is not an exceptional situation. The terrorist groups were behind a series of attacks targeting us including the bombing of our central office in Damascus. When they attacked our central office, they were not able to score a direct hit, but the building next to us was heavily damaged.

In Aleppo, the terrorist groups attacking the area of Sheikh Maksoud, which is mainly Kurdish, have primarily targeted the homes of Communist Party members. Unfortunately, three female comrades were murdered in these attacks. There are many other members who were targeted but were saved by luck since they were not home at the time of these attacks.

We are going through a war that though difficult and serious at times cannot be taken lightly. But we are determined to continue with our struggle. To begin with, in imperialist attacks toward a homeland, history shows us that the communists have primary responsibility for resisting and organizing this resistance. As Syrian communists, the duty to struggle for our homeland lies first and foremost on our shoulders. This is our responsibility.

Secondly, we cannot imagine any future in Syria but a victorious one. We have no other choice but victory. With that in mind, you can be sure that we will do our utmost to keep up our end. It is only natural that such determination would be targeted by the terrorists. It is normal.

Are there any communists or left forces that are in dialogue, or stand in solidarity, with you in the other Arab countries that have been subjected to imperialist attacks?

To answer the question frankly, even if there are diplomatic relations that go on at a particular level, it is difficult to say that there is solidarity among us. When our situation in Syria is taken into account, I can say that we need an attitude of solidarity that is more than a “message of goodwill” by this or that party.

To give you a concrete example, we need concrete steps of solidarity like the recent conference in Istanbul that was organized by the Peace Association of Turkey and our comrades of the Communist Party of Turkey. We valued this undertaking immensely. This is why I have been here in Turkey for days. Given the reality that people living in other parts of the world do not have access to honest news about Syria, the conference in Istanbul gave us a great opportunity to tell what is really going on in Syria, to put this on the agenda of the international movements in the right way, to achieve a clarity of approach and to move forward together. This is very valuable.

It is clear that similar conferences need to be held in other cities around the world. Forums of this sort not only help increase the support and understanding of the struggle of the people of Syria, but they also energize us. I need to say that in the struggle we are waging in Syria, we have been left alone. There are 22 Arab countries, and no events in solidarity with the Syrian people have been organized in the capitals of these countries. Yet we have been resisting for two years and we will continue until the end.

How have the events in Syria affected your organizing? Do you think that there are new opportunities for strengthening the party?

History shows us that struggles against imperialism and fascism increase the value and respectability of the communist parties in the eyes of the people. This was the case for the Soviets in their defense of the motherland, and the same in Greece or France. Communists were at the forefront, organizing the resistance of the people for the defense of their motherland. This is the case for us as well.

If we consider our position in Syria, the Syrian Communist Party is a strong organization with more than a quarter of a million members. This was already the case before the attacks. In this regard, the Syrian society is an organized one. With this in mind, instead of whether we are getting stronger during the crisis, it would be more meaningful to talk about our role in keeping the resistance going as much as it has.

As the cadres and members of the Syrian Communist Party, we are aware of the responsibilities on our shoulders. We appreciate the value of life very much, but we are also acting with the consciousness that we may have to be the first ones to face death for the future of our country. The people of Syria are very dignified. If they have been able to keep the resistance up for two years, our party has a share in this. I have to say that the fact that we are among the people, not simply with them, has played a very important role for the resistance.

Source: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/communists-defend-syrian-sovereignty.html

EU Attempts to Reignite Syrian Conflict

New Worker

Syria, Russia and Iran have condemned the European Union’s decision to end its arms embargo on Syria. The Syrian government said: “The recent EU decision proves they are hindering the international efforts aimed at achieving a political settlement to the crisis in Syria based on national dialogue among Syrians”. And Iran warned that some EU states had taken a wrong and dangerous stand in supporting the terrorists which can only undermine international efforts to end the fighting.

Meanwhile US Senator and former Republican presidential candidate John Mc- Cain paid a surprise visit to the rebels in northern Syria on Monday. The leading American war-monger entered Turkey and then sneaked across the border into Syria where he met with leaders of the “Free Syrian Army”. McCain represents the most aggressive sections of the American ruling class and he has constantly pushed for more direct US involvement in the conflict, including arming the rebels.

The EU move, taken at a foreign ministers’ conference in Brussels on Monday, was pushed through by Britain and France despite opposition from many other member states. Fourteen members, led by Austria, Sweden and the Czech Republic, were against lifting arms embargo. Germany expressed caution while Italy and Cyprus backed Britain and France.

Foreign Secretary William Hague naturally hailed the Anglo-French initiative, saying that all the sanctions would be maintained against the Syrian government, but lifted for the rebels — paving the way to open weapons sales to the “Free Syrian Army”, the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaida gangs that are fighting to overthrow the Baathist-led popular front government in Damascus.

Back in Moscow Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the EU has made a “double mistake” in imposing the embargo in the first place and then refusing to extend it. Lavrov said that lifting the arms ban would only aggravate the situation in Syria and hinder progress towards the Russian-American sponsored international peace conference to end the fighting in Syria.

The Kremlin now says it will go ahead with deliveries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, and that the arms will help deter foreign intervention. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the missiles were a “stabilising factor” that could dissuade “some hotheads” from entering the conflict.

Russia agreed to supply Syria with S-300s some years ago but delayed delivery last year following Nato protests. The truck-mounted missiles are capable of striking multiple targets simultaneously with a range of up to 200 km and the system is designed to defend large administrative centres, industrial complexes and military bases.

The Syrian armed forces are winning the war against the NATO-backed rebels — a fact now acknowledged by German intelligence. Germany’s foreign intelligence agency (BND) believes that the foreign-sponsored militant groups in Syria are facing extreme difficulties in the battle and says the Syrian army is capable of conducting successful operations against the foreign-backed militias “at will”. Gerhard Schindler, the head of the BND, told security officials that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is now more stable than it has been in a long time. This is a fundamental reversal from last summer, when the BND predicted that the Syrian government would collapse by early 2013.

Schindler visited Syria earlier in the month for talks with the chief of the Syrian national security agency about the presence of German extremists in the country.

According to the German media the BND currently believes that the foreign-sponsored militant groups in Syria, which include several al-Qaida- affiliated groups, are in deep trouble.

Syrian security forces have inflicted major losses on the rebels in the strategic western city of Qusayr including the chief commander of the terrorist group al-Nusra Front, Abu Omar, who was killed in the fighting in the city last week.

Schindler says that the rebels are fighting each other to gain supremacy in certain regions. There is no functional chain of command between the leaders of the foreign- backed Syrian opposition and its armed elements inside the country, the BND head stated, adding that each new battle weakens the militants further.

Schindler said the Syrian army could regain control of the entire south of the country by the end of 2013 if the conflict continues as it has over the past week and the Syrian army has managed to cut supply lines for weapons and evacuation routes for wounded militants to neighbouring countries.

While Anglo-American and French imperialism move closer to open aggression against Syria the struggle for peace continues. As President Assad said last week: “Syria is determined to tackle terrorism and those who support it regionally and globally, and to find a political solution to the crisis.”

Henrique Capriles: Venezuela’s Sore Loser

Dan Beeton

Reuters reported Sunday that the president of Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) Tibisay Lucena has criticized opposition candidate Henrique Capriles for not presenting proof to back up his claims of fraud (also the focus of our post earlier today):

“We have always insisted that Capriles had the right to challenge the process,” Tibisay Lucena, president of the electoral council, said in a televised national broadcast.

“But it is also his obligation to present proof.”

She dismissed various opposition submissions alleging voting irregularities as lacking key details, and said Capriles had subsequently tried to present the audit in very different terms than the electoral council had agreed to.

“It has been manipulated to generate false expectations about the process, including making it look like the consequence of the wider audit could affect the election results,” she said.

Lucena’s statements that the election audit of the remaining voting machines, as initially called for by Capriles, will not change the results are correct, although perhaps not for the reasons she meant. As noted on Friday, we did a statistical analysis of the probability of the results of the audit of the first 53 percent of voting machines finding the results it did if the remaining 46 percent of voting machines in Venezuela had enough discrepancies to change the results of the election. The probability, according to our calculations, is less than 1 in 25,000 trillion.

The math is pretty straightforward. Considering how many votes by which Nicolás Maduro was declared the winner, and that the initial audit of 54 percent of machines didn’t find anything, and considering how many votes there are per machine, it is almost impossible for the remaining 46 percent of machines to have enough discrepancies to change the election results.

Perhaps because he realized the audit is not likely to change things for him, Capriles has shifted course, now demanding access to the electoral registry and fingerprint records. In light of this news, some have attempted seriously painful logical gymnastics in order to make Capriles’ arguments seem plausible. Writing for Foreign Policy, for example, blogger Juan Nagel asks “Does Henrique Capriles actually have a case to cry fraud?” But Nagel does not seem interested in actually examining the question; his mind seems already to have been made up. Shortly after noting that,

Voters identify themselves at polling centers by showing their government-issued ID card and scanning their fingerprints. The scanner then (supposedly) verifies the identity of the voter, and if it passes, unlocks a machine the voter uses to cast her vote.

Nagel writes:

One has to wonder: How could chavistas get away with this? The explanation, according to Capriles, lies in the fingerprint scanning machines. According to him, these machines allow anyone to vote, regardless of whether the fingerprint matches the records. [Emphasis added.]

But as election monitors who witnessed voting in the April 14 election described to us, the process is more fool-proof than Nagel summarizes. As noted in our April 14 live blog:

People must show identification, their serial number is then entered into a digital device and their photo comes up, then they give a thumb print to verify their identity again.

Rather than just “anyone” being allowed to vote, government ID is required, and the voter’s identity is verified. The voter then enters her/his finger print as a second check against fraud.

Despite the lack of evidence of fraud, or any plausible explanation for how the election could have been stolen in spite of the integrity of the Venezuelan electoral system, press reports and commentary continue to treat Capriles’ claims seriously. This stands in contrast to the foreign media’s treatment of Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s cry of “fraud” following the 2006 election in which Felipe Calderon was declared the winner. “An Anti-Democracy Campaign; Mexico’s presidential loser takes a lesson from Joseph Stalin,” ran a Washington Post editorial headline. The Times of London declared him “Mexico’s bad loser: A demagogue prepared to hold the nation to ransom,” while the Toronto Globe and Mail called him “Mexico’s sore loser.” So far at least, no major U.S., British or Canadian paper has labeled Capriles a “sore loser” and the Washington Post has yet to compare him to Stalin.

The double standard between media treatment of the left-leaning López Obrador and the right-wing Capriles is even more striking considering that López Obrador led in the polls up until the vote. López Obrador and his supporters were understandably surprised when the official results declared Calderon to be the winner. Capriles, on the other hand, always trailed Maduro in the polls; the surprise on April 14 was not that he lost, but that he came as close to winning as he did.

More importantly, in the 2006 Mexican election there were “adding up” errors in nearly half the ballot boxes – i.e. the leftover blank ballots plus the voted (including spoiled) ballots didn’t add up to the blank ballots with which the ballot box location started out. The results were announced with millions of votes still uncounted, and there was a considerable lack of transparency – including a refusal by electoral authorities to release the results of a partial recount. Journalists covering the Mexican election at the time should have demanded answers from the authorities and commentators should have treated López Obrador’s complaints very seriously, since there really was no way to tell who had won that election. The burden of proof in Venezuela, however, should be on Capriles to explain exactly how the election could conceivably have been stolen.

NATO’s Syrian Puppets On the Run

New Worker

The Syrian army has launched a new drive against the Nato-backed rebels sweeping them off the major motorway that runs from Damascus to the coast and rooting them out of their terrorist hide-outs in northern Syria and the Damascus countryside.

But confusion surrounds the whereabouts of two Greek Orthodox bishops kidnapped on Monday by the Islamic fanatics, who are increasingly focusing their venom against the Syria’s Christian communities that have remained loyal to the Baathist-led popular front government.

The government of Bashar al Assad is working with the opposition forces in the Syrian parliament as well as endorsing Russian initiatives for a broad dialogue with all opposition forces to end the civil strife and work for national reconciliation within the boundaries of the new constitution.

The Syrian army is advancing on several fronts as part of its fresh widescale operation to wrest control over rebellious areas across the country, local media reported Wednesday.

Syrian troops have broken the rebel siege on the Wadi al-Daif encampments in northwestern Syria to secure the road between the central province of Hama and the north-western province of Idlib all the way to Aleppo province. The road between the capital Damascus and the southern province of Daraa and the borders with Jordan is now open, and the army has cleared the road between Damascus and the central province of Homs as well as areas along the border with Lebanon.

The Syrian army has thwarted every attempt of the rebel Muslim Brotherhood militias and Al Qaida gangs to create a rebel controlled “safe-haven” on Syrian soil. Nato and feudal Arab arms and money still have to be funnelled across the border with Turkey and it’s increasingly clear that continued support of the imperialists and their Arab lackeys is the only thing that is prolonging the violence.

Imperialist dreams of a Libyan-style “regime change” in Syria have failed because the strength of the Syrian armed forces and the determination of the Syrian people as a whole to resist sectarian violence and foreign intervention.

And that is increasing being recognised by Syria’s Arab foes. The Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt finally dropped its demand for Assad’s resignation this week, in favour of talks between the Syrian government and all the opposition groups to end the fighting. Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamal Amr said his country’s new stance was prompted by the “need to reach a political solution for the Syrian crisis that guarantees the preservation of the unity of the Syrian people.”

In the European Union there’s renewed concern at the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Syria and fears of an Afghan-style backlash when the Nato-inspired revolt collapses. European intelligence chiefs fear that some have joined Al Qaida and could return to Europe to launch terror attacks.

The EU’s own anti- terror chief, Gilles de Kerchove, claimed this week that some 500 European Muslims are now fighting in Syria. Most of them have come from Britain, France and Ireland. “Not all of them are radical when they leave, but most likely many of them will be radicalised there, will be trained,” de Kerchove said.

Meanwhile Russia has stepped up its humanitarian aid to the Syrian people by sending planeloads of supplies to Syrian airports as well as to Lebanon and Jordan to help refugees forced to leave their homes by the armed terrorist groups. At the same time a flotilla from Russia’s Pacific naval fleet is heading towards to eastern Mediterranean. The ships, which include an anti-submarine ship and two landing- craft, are believed to heading to the Russian naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus.

Waco Massacre: We Will Not Forget

Workers Vanguard

April 19 marks the 20th anniversary of the government’s massacre of over 80 men, women and children of the integrated Branch Davidian religious sect outside Waco, Texas. For more than seven weeks, an array of police forces had laid siege to the Branch Davidian compound following a raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms aimed at arresting the group’s leader, David Koresh, on false charges of illegal weapons possession. The government was out for blood—and lots of it—after four Feds were killed in the initial assault, which took the life of a two-year-old girl and a number of church members. Finally, the state got its revenge through a massive attack that burned the compound to the ground, with the trapped members of the sect perishing in the inferno.

From the outset of the siege, the Spartacist League and Partisan Defense Committee—a class-struggle legal and social defense organization associated with the SL—protested the government vendetta against the Branch Davidians. On 8 March 1993, as tanks rolled into Waco, the PDC sent a protest to Democratic president Bill Clinton demanding that “all troops, tanks, police and federal agents be removed from the area.” The letter pointed out, “We think you would do well to take the advice of the newly elected President Lincoln, who when asked what he proposed to do about the polygamous Mormons replied, ‘I propose to let them alone’.”

Attorney General Janet Reno justified the assault by raising the spectre of “child abuse.” This was forcefully answered by Bob Buck, a West Virginia steel worker who had been railroaded to prison for defending his union on the picket line during a bitter 1991-92 strike. In a letter to the PDC, Buck wrote: “They were so damned concerned for the children they unleashed an armed assault on the house they lived in and filled it full of bullet holes;…gassed them, and ultimately burned them to death. Ain’t America great. I’m glad Mrs. Reno isn’t concerned about me.”

The SL and PDC protested the Waco holocaust outside federal offices in New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. Shamefully, the reformist left turned a blind eye to the atrocity or joined in blaming the victims, just as almost every one of them did when Philadelphia’s black Democratic mayor Wilson Goode ordered the bombing of the predominantly black MOVE commune in 1985. Our intention was, and is, to sear the memory of these acts of government mass murder into the consciousness of the working class, whose historic interest lies in revolutionary struggle to sweep away the murderous capitalist state.

We print below the bulk of the press release issued by the SL announcing the protest demonstrations, which began in Manhattan the day of the massacre.

*   *   *

The charred corpses of 87 men, women and children who perished in the firestorm resulting from the FBI’s barrage of CS gas, flash-grenades and battering rams are the direct responsibility of the White House. President Clinton gave the green light, Attorney General Janet Reno personally supervised the plan, and the FBI’s storm troopers moved in to carry out the government’s “final solution” against the small, integrated Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas. After a murderous raid by federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents armed to the teeth and a 51-day siege, almost a hundred people have now been subjected to a flaming apocalypse for the sole “crime” of being a non-conformist religious sect which dared to defend itself against government assault.

An SL spokesman, in condemning this outrage, noted that the Branch Davidians received the same death sentence meted out to the black MOVE commune in Philadelphia, bombed by the Philadelphia police on Mother’s Day (May 13) 1985, using C-4 plastic explosives donated by the FBI. Eleven black people were murdered there, including five children, and an entire black neighborhood was laid to waste. “Like the racist cop beating of L.A. black motorist Rodney King,” said Spartacist spokesman Marjorie Stamberg, “the Waco holocaust is the domestic image of America’s ‘New World Order.’ This is U.S. imperialism’s ‘Desert Slaughter’ in Iraq brought home.”

A banner outside the compound of the racially integrated Branch Davidian religious sect said, “Rodney King—We Understand.” It is no accident that the feds’ onslaught in Waco came two days after the slap-on-the-wrist verdict for two racist cops in L.A. With troops poised to occupy the inner cities coast to coast, amid a massive police-state mobilization, the racist rulers breathed a collective sigh of relief that the urban ghettos and barrios did not explode in outrage over another outright racist acquittal. They seized the moment to incinerate the Waco commune.

In the gray light of dawn, the FBI moved in the heavy artillery—M-60 Combat Engineering Vehicles, Bradley fighting vehicles and heat-seeking reconnaissance planes—in a bid to drive out or exterminate the 70 adults and 25 children still inside the wooden structure. The whole area had already been ringed with razor-sharp concertina wire. Electricity and water were cut off. The intent was to create a firetrap with no escape. Naturally there were no firefighting vehicles present to put out the flames. Now the government wants to blame the victims, but the Waco assault was deliberate mass murder, decided at the White House.

On Sunday, Vice President Al Gore wept tears for those who died 50 years ago in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. But the methodical burning down of the Waco commune, carried “live” on television, recalled nothing so much as the Nazis’ razing of the Warsaw ghetto. Clinton/Gore have carried out their own holocaust against another religious minority who evidently have “no right to exist” in this racist capitalist society. The Clinton administration has carried out its own Operation Prairie Slaughter, igniting a massive firestorm against its perceived domestic “enemies,” a small group who did no harm to anyone.

The Spartacist League spokesman noted, “From Republican Bush to Democrat Clinton, the racist rulers show what they have in store for anyone who dares to defy the state. The murder of these innocent people, burned at the stake by this bloodthirsty government, cries out for vengeance. It will take a socialist revolution to mete out real justice to the police torturers of Rodney King, to the FBI arsonists in Waco, to the U.S. military bombers of Baghdad.”

USA Intentionally Undermining Venezuela’s Democracy

Dan Kovalik

Update: Venezuelan government agrees to expand audit of votes to 100 percent of all votes cast

The United States is refusing to recognize the results of the Venezuelan elections, insisting that Venezuela conduct a re-count of 100 percent of the votes in light of the narrow margin of victory for Nicolas Maduro. The facts surrounding the voting process and election outcome in Venezuela, the U.S.’s own experiences with close presidential elections, and the U.S.’s recent recognition of coup governments in Latin America demonstrate that the U.S.’s position in regard to Venezuela has nothing to do with the U.S.’s alleged concerns for democracy, but rather, its complete disdain for it.

I just returned from Venezuela where I was one of over 170 international election observers from around the world, including India, Guyana, Suriname, Colombia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Scotland, England, the United States, Guatemala, Argentina, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, Jamaica, Brazil, Chile, Greece, France, Panama and Mexico. These observers included two former presidents (of Guatemala and the Dominican Republic), judges, lawyers and numerous high ranking officials of national electoral councils. What we found was an election system which was transparent, inherently reliable, well-run and thoroughly audited.

Indeed, as to the auditing, what has been barely mentioned by the mainstream press is the fact that around 54 percent of all votes are, and indeed have already been, audited to ensure that the electronic votes match up with the paper receipts which serve as back-up for these electronic votes. And, this auditing is done in the presence of witnesses from both the governing and opposition parties right in the local polling places themselves. I witnessed just such an audit at the end of election day on Sunday. And, as is the usual case, the paper results matched up perfectly with the electronic ones. As the former Guatemalan President, Alvaro Colom, who served as an observer, opined, the vote in Venezuela is “secure” and easily verifiable.

In short, the observers’ experience this past week aligns with former U.S. president Jimmy Carter’s observation last year that Venezuela’s electoral system is indeed the “the best in the world.”

And so, what were the results of the election? With an impressive 79 percent of registered voters going to the polls, Nicolas Maduro won by over 260,000 votes, with a 1.6 percentage point margin over Henrique Capriles (50.7 to 49.1 percent). While this was certainly a close race, 260,000 votes is a comfortable victory, certainly by U.S. election standards. Thus, recall that John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon in 1960 with 49.7 percent of the vote to Nixon’s 49.6 percent. In addition, George W. Bush became president in 2000, though losing the popular vote to Al Gore, with 47.87 percent of the vote to Gore’s 48.38 percent, and with the entire race coming down to several hundred votes in Florida, with the Supreme Court actually blocking a hand recount in Florida. In none of these cases, did any nation in the world insist upon a recount or hesitate in recognizing the man declared to be the winner. Indeed, had a country like Venezuela done so, we would have found such a position absurd. The U.S.’s current position vis à vis Venezuela is no less absurd.

The U.S.’s position is all the more ridiculous given its quick recognition of the coup government in Paraguay after the former bishop-turned president, Fernando Lugo, was ousted in 2012, and its recognition of the 2009 elections in Honduras despite the fact that the U.S.’s stated precondition for recognizing this election — the return of President Manuel Zelaya to power after his forcible ouster by the military — never occurred. Of course, this even pales in comparison to the U.S.’s active involvement in coups against democratically-elected leaders in Latin America (e.g., against President Árbenz in Guatemala in 1954, against President Allende in Chile in 1973, and against President Aristide in Haiti in 2004).

And, the U.S.’s failure to recognize the Venezuelan elections is having devastating consequences in Venezuela, for it is emboldening the Venezuelan opposition to carry out violence in order to destabilize that country. Unlike Al Gore in 2000 who stepped aside for George W. Bush in the interest of his country and the U.S. Constitution, the Venezuelan opposition, being led by Henrique Capriles, clearly wants to foster chaos and crisis in Venezuela in order to topple the Maduro government by force (just as the same forces represented by Capriles forcibly kidnapped and briefly overthrew President Chavez, with U.S. support, in 2002). Thus, reasonably believing itself to have the backing of the U.S. and its military, the opposition is causing mayhem in Venezuela, including burning down clinics, destroying property, attacking Cuban doctors and destroying ruling party buildings. In all, seven Venezuelans are dead and dozens injured in this opposition-led violence.

There is no doubt that the U.S. could halt this violence right now by recognizing the results of the Venezuelan elections, just as the nations of the world recognized, without question, the results of the elections which put John F. Kennedy in power in 1960 and George W. Bush in power in 2000. The reason the U.S. is not doing so is obvious: It does not like the Venezuelans’ chosen form of government, and welcomes that government’s demise, even through violence. The U.S., therefore, is not supporting democracy and stability in Venezuela; it is intentionally undermining it.

Capriles Falsifies Evidence in Order to Claim Fraud in Venezuela’s Elections

Chris Carlson

Opposition leader Henrique Capriles has given falsified evidence to support his claims that there was fraud in Venezuela’s presidential elections on Sunday.

At a press conference on Tuesday, the opposition candidate listed several examples that he claimed were evidence of “irregularities” in the electoral process and in the vote count, and presented a series of slides to national and international media.

However, several of the examples given by Capriles as evidence of fraud are clearly false, as can be seen by consulting the results on the National Electoral Council’s (CNE) website.

As one example, Capriles listed three separate voting centers in which he claimed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro had gotten much higher results than Hugo Chavez had gotten in the previous presidential elections.

Capriles claimed that this was implausible, since overall Maduro did not get as many total votes as Chavez.

“In one voting center in Yaracuy, Maduro got 1000 percent more votes than Chavez did. How can anyone believe that?” he said.

However, the results from last year’s election show that the three voting centers that Capriles gave as examples were cases in which all the votes from that center had not yet been registered in 2012’s results when the election was called for Chavez, leading to an extremely low vote count from those centers for both candidates.

In the Yaracuy voting center, for example, a total of only 9 votes out of 75 were registered in 2012’s elections, 7 for Hugo Chavez and 2 votes for Henrique Capriles.

However, on Sunday all the votes from this center were registered before the election was called, leading to 73 votes for Nicolas Maduro, and only 6 votes for Henrique Capriles.

The same situation can be seen for the examples Capriles gave in Merida (2012 vs. 2013), and Nueva Esparta (2012 vs. 2013), centers at which there was a very low vote count in 2012.

Given the unusually low vote count in these centers in 2012, the votes for both candidates drastically increases when compared to 2013′s results.

In the Merida voting center, for example, votes for Capriles also increased by nearly 1000 percent, and were also much higher than the number of votes for Chavez from that center in 2012.

Other examples given by Capriles were also fabricated by manipulating the numbers of different vote tallies.

Capriles claimed that in some cases there were more votes than total voters registered at that voting center. However, the only example provided by Capriles is also false.

Capriles said that at a voting center in the state of Trujillo the number of voters for this center was 536, but that a total of 717 votes were tallied. However, CNE’s results for this voting center show only 369 votes were tallied, not 717.

Communications Minister Ernesto Villegas explained during a press conference last night that Capriles had erroneously added together the votes from two separate voting tables, but was using the voter rolls from only one of the two tables.

To counter Capriles claims, government officials have pledged to publish online at the PSUV’s website all of the actual vote tallies from the thousands of voting centers around the country so that the public can see that the official results line up with the individual vote tallies.

Electoral witnesses from the Capriles campaign presumably signed off on all of the vote tallies, as they would have been present at the voting centers at the closing of the polls on Sunday.

The nature of Venezuela’s electoral system makes the kind of fraud alleged by Capriles nearly impossible. Witnesses from both sides are present at every voting center around the country, and a random hot audit of 54 percent of the votes is conducted at all of the centers in the presence of all witnesses immediately after the polls close.

The paper receipts that each voter deposits in a sealed box are counted to assure that they line up with the tally from the voting machines, and all witnesses sign the tallies to certify that they witnessed the audit.

However, Capriles claimed yesterday that his witnesses were forcibly ejected, often at gunpoint, from nearly 300 voting centers around the country on Sunday.

No evidence was provided for this claim, and no independent reports of this happening were registered by any major media outlets on the day of the elections.

Pro-Chavez political commentator Mario Silva responded to the claim last night by questioning how this could have happened without anyone noticing.

“Do you really believe that hundreds of witnesses could be forcibly removed from the voting centers without anyone saying anything? Why haven’t any of those witnesses made a denunciation or talked to the media?” he said.

Capriles has pledged to turn over all of his “evidence” of fraud to the National Electoral Council for review, and pledges to continue to demand a recount, or that the election be annulled.

The government has reported that 7 people have been killed so far in the violence that erupted around the country after Capriles claimed the elections were fraudulent.

NOTE: Due to recent attacks from hackers, the National Electoral Council’s website linked to in this article is not currently accessible from outside Venezuela. It should be available in the coming days.

In Venezuela, Oligarchy Strikes Back

Félix López

Henrique Capriles, the candidate of Venezuela’s oligarchy and imperialism, has lost two presidential elections in six months. The first on October 7, 2012, against Chávez. The second, this April 14 against Nicolás Maduro. Capriles’ most recent election victory took place on December 16, 2012 when he became governor of Miranda, with an advantage of just 45,111 votes over his Bolivarian opponent, Elías Jaua. At that time, the National Electoral Council (CNE) seemed to him to be a very fair, respectable, and transparent body.

This April 14, Capriles lost to Nicolás Maduro by a difference of 234,935 votes (according the first official bulletin released). And as he made clear through his attitude prior to the elections, he is not accepting the result and he has called for national protest with cacerolazos (banging of pots and pans in street demonstrations), guarimbas (public disorders, blocking streets), accusations and refusal to acknowledge the election results, lies, and fear campaigns, denying the President-elect’s legitimacy and ignoring the majority will of the people, leading in the aftermath of the election to despicable acts of violence against some properties including health facilities, and residential, commercial, and political buildings.

Undoubtedly, the coming days in Venezuela will be tense. The irresponsible attitude of the defeated candidate and his campaign staff, which receive their orders and assistance from the U.S. embassy in Caracas, aims to create a similar climate to that of April 2002. Only this time the leadership of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces is connected to the people and is loyal to their Comandante en Jefe; the Bolivarians are more organized, the national public system of communication is more solid and Nicolás, the elected President, has told them that he is a man of peace, but that he will not allow the country to descend into violence.

The sore loser and his mentors are lashing out against the CNE. They are demanding a recount of the votes, a demand that the Bolivarians accept, confident as they are that they will emerge even better when the non-automated votes are counted, which come from the remotest areas of the country where there is majority support for the revolution. But Capriles has not requested a peaceful audit process. His fit of temper, as well scripted as his election campaign, involves creating a series of destabilization events, and in any one of these scenes something out of the ordinary could happen which could put the country’s peace at risk.

Let us not forget today’s new style of coup d’etat, which has already been rehearsed with a certain degree of success in Honduras and Paraguay; and we say “a certain degree of success” because the people’s response to the events and the reaction across the continent also point to the existence of a new way of dealing with the situation. For the Bolivarian revolutionaries this is a time to be alert, patient and firm. While the opposing temper tantrum spreads its class hatred throughout Venezuela, the people must unite around Nicolás Maduro, the continuator of Chávez’ work.

If the Venezuelan opposition had learned the rules of the democratic game (with which Chávez won 17 to 1), they would now be leading the large number of their followers (680,000 more than in October 2012) instead of calling them to battle. Capriles has the responsibility to guide and lead those who voted for him, not to take them into confrontation, as they did in 2002, attempting to take by force the power they could not win at the polls.

Having been declared President by the CNE, Nicolás Maduro has sent a clear message: “A majority is a majority and in a democracy this should be respected, we should not be looking for ambushes, pretexts to put the sovereignty of the people at risk (…); all that has one name: golpismo (coup-plotting). And that is what this is all about, the next chapter of a novel in which the recurring theme is an ongoing coup and an intention to topple the revolution by force. Because by the proper channels (with votes) they have lost again.

Cristina Kirchner: USA Must Recognize Maduro’s Victory

Press TV

Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has called on the United States to recognize the results of the presidential election in Venezuela and not to encourage conflicts.

On Wednesday, Kirchner called for the White House to accept Nicolas Maduro’s victory against Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique Capriles in the recent election.

The Argentinean president said the US should recognize the results “as the best contribution to peace, with facts and not simply with words.”

“In all humbleness I would like to ask the US government to recognize the current Venezuelan government after such a transparent, clean election,” Kirchner stated.

The Argentinean president recommended the United States “not to encourage conflicts, because they end up with the death of fellow South Americans.” “We make this request with humbleness, because institutions must be respected,” she added.

In addition, Kirchner commended a decision by Capriles to cancel an opposition march for Wednesday, following recent violent incidents that claimed the lives of seven members from Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

Kirchner also reminded the United States that nations such as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Russia all have recognized Maduro as the new president.

She also pointed out that no South American country challenged the results of the controversial presidential election in the United States in 2000, in which George W. Bush defeated Al Gore after a vote count in the state of Florida that was said to have been fraudulent.

Maduro won the Venezuelan presidential election on April 14 by 50.8 percent of the votes against the opposition leader’s 49 percent.

On March 8, Maduro became the country’s acting president, following the death of late President Hugo Chavez, who lost a two-year-long battle with cancer on March 5.

Under My Presidency, Chávez’s Revolution Will Continue

Nicolas Maduro

A month ago Venezuela lost a historic leader who spearheaded the transformation of his country, and spurred a wave of change throughout Latin America. In Sunday’s election Venezuelans will choose whether to pursue the revolution initiated under Hugo Chávez – or return to the past. I worked closely with President Chávez for many years, and am now running to succeed him. Polls indicate that most Venezuelans support our peaceful revolution.

Chávez’s legacy is so profound that opposition leaders, who vilified him only months ago, now insist they will defend his achievements. But Venezuelans remember how many of these same figures supported an ill-fated coup against Chávez in 2002 and sought to reverse policies that have dramatically reduced poverty and inequality.

To grasp the scale of what has been achieved, it’s necessary to recall the state of my country when Chávez took office in 1999. In the previous 20 years Venezuela had suffered one of the sharpest economic declines in the world. As a result of neoliberal policies that favoured transnational capital at the expense of people’s basic needs, poverty soared. A draconian market-oriented agenda was imposed through massive repression, including the 1989 massacre of thousands in what is known as the Caracazo.

This disastrous trend was reversed under Chávez. Once the government was able to assert effective control over the state oil company in 2003, we began investing oil revenue in social programmes that now provide free healthcare and education throughout the country. The economic situation vastly improved. Poverty and extreme poverty have been reduced dramatically. Today Venezuela has the lowest rate of income inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean.

As a result our government has won almost every election or referendum since 1998 – 16 in all – in a democratic process the former US president Jimmy Carter called “the best in the world“. If you haven’t heard much about these accomplishments, it may have something to do with the influence of Washington and its allies on the international media. They have been trying to de-legitimise and get rid of our government for more than a decade, ever since they supported the 2002 coup.

We have also worked to transform the region: to unite the countries of Latin America and work together to address the causes and symptoms of poverty. Venezuela was central to the creation of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac), aimed at promoting social and economic development and political co-operation.

The media myth that our political project would fall apart without Chávez was a fundamental misreading of Venezuela’s revolution. Chávez has left a solid edifice, its foundation a broad, united movement that supports the process of transformation. We’ve lost our extraordinary leader, but his project – built collectively by workers, farmers, women, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, and the young – is more alive than ever.

The media often portray Venezuela as on the brink of economic collapse – but our economy is stronger than ever. We have a low debt burden and a significant trade surplus, and have accumulated close to $30bn in international reserves.

There are of course many challenges still to overcome, as Chávez himself acknowledged. Among my primary objectives is the need to intensify our efforts to curb crime and aggressively confront inefficiency and corruption in a nationwide campaign.

Internationally, we will continue to work with our neighbours to deepen regional integration and fight poverty and social injustice. It’s a vision now shared across the region, which is why my candidacy has received strong support from figures such as the former Brazilian president Lula da Silva and many Latin American social movements. We also remain committed to promoting regional peace and stability, and this is why we will continue our energetic support of the peace talks in Colombia.

Latin America today is experiencing a profound political and social renaissance – a second independence – after decades of surrendering its sovereignty and freedom to global powers and transnational interests. Under my presidency, Venezuela will continue supporting this regional transformation and building a new form of socialism for our times. With the support of progressive people from every continent, we’re confident Venezuela can give a new impetus to the struggle for a more equitable, just and peaceful world.