Russia: Clashes and arrests as thousands rally against corruption in Moscow

Putin's Russia

NATO condemns Russia's military escalation in Crimea – statement

NATO condemns Russia's military escalation in Crimea and expresses concern about the decision by the Federation Council of Russia's Federal Assembly to use Russian armed forces on the territory of Ukraine, NATO said in a statement after a meeting of the North Atlantic Council and the NATO-Ukraine Commission in Brussels on Sunday.

 

"Military action against Ukraine by forces of the Russian Federation is a breach of international law. It contravenes the principles of the NATO-Russia Council and the Partnership for Peace. Russia must respect its obligations under the United Nations Charter and the spirit and principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, on which peace and stability in Europe rest. We call on Russia to de-escalate tensions," the statement reads.

 

NATO also calls upon Russia to honor all its international commitments, including under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and a bilateral agreement on the principles of the Black Sea Fleet's stationing in Crimea, and to withdraw its forces to its bases, and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine.

 

"We urge both parties to immediately seek a peaceful resolution through dialogue, through the dispatch of international observers under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council or the OSCE," the statement reads.

 

"We emphasise the importance of an inclusive political process in Ukraine based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities and the rule of law which fulfills the democratic aspirations of the entire Ukrainian people," the statement reads.

 

NATO says Ukraine is a valued partner for NATO and a founding member of the Partnership for Peace. NATO Allies will continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, without outside interference.

 

Speaking at a press conference after the meeting on Sunday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that NATO intends to engage with Russia in the NATO-Russia Council.

Uruguay says it accepted Venezuela in Mercosur as part of a major negotiation

The Uruguayan government said that it accepted the incorporation of Venezuela as full member of Mercosur as part of a “negotiation” in which it demanded no economic sanctions on Paraguay and that is why “the last word has not been said” on the issue.

 Diego Canepa, his master’s voice tries to explain what happened in Mendoza

During a press round following a cabinet council meeting on Monday the Deputy Secretary from the Presidency Diego Canepa expanded on Foreign minister Luis Almagro’s words, earlier in the day, when he said he was not satisfied with the incorporation of Venezuela to Mercosur under the current circumstances and that is why there was a request to have until July 31 to make effective the entrance of President Hugo Chavez.

According to Canepa, Uruguay ended accepting the decision although it was in favour of such a move on virtue of “political circumstances”.

“That is why President Jose Mujica decided not to veto the incorporation of Venezuela in spite of the fact that the Paraguayan parliament had not given its approval, but given the trading importance of Venezuela for Uruguay, as well as the acceptance by Brazil and Argentina not to impose economic sanctions on the Paraguayan regime”, explained Canepa.

The Deputy Secretary then revealed that President Mujica and Minister Almagro decided to attend the Mendoza summit with the idea of not allowing economic sanctions on Paraguay, because “what happened was not a problem with the Paraguayan people”.

Accordingly Mujica requested from his peers, Cristina Fernandez and Dilma Rousseff the continuity of the Mercosur Structural Convergence Fund for Paraguay and proposed that Venezuela should not cut the oil aid to the country, as Chavez had originally promised and announced.

Besides, the Uruguayan president proposed and it was accepted by the two lady presidents the opening of the regional block “to the countries from the Pacific Alliance,” a decision which Uruguay “believes is an opportunity to expand dialogue and not end up with a fractured America”.

The Pacific Alliance recently created includes Chile, Peru and Colombia, and eventually Mexico, all governments that favour open markets, foreign investment and are friendly business, which is not necessarily the case with Mercosur and the rest of the continent.

The alliance has seriously disturbed Brazilian diplomacy that is now facing a major challenge to their political, economic and trade dominance in the region.

Canepa also pointed out that Mujica requested to wait until the next Mercosur meeting in Rio do Janeiro to make official the incorporation of Venezuela instead of doing it right away in Mendoza.

“It was important that Uruguay adopted a realistic policy and having achieved what it achieved, Uruguay could not appear vetoing the access of Venezuela” argued Canepa.

The close aide of Mujica said that “Uruguay understands that from a juridical point of view another path could have been chosen and even better, but if in your country half the political public opinion supports it, you can’t reject the position”.

He also insisted that the incorporation of Venezuela to the Mercosur block was “long ago voted” by the Uruguayan parliament and besides all the presidents considered that the Ushuaia constitutional clause was not being complied during the process to remove Lugo and that is why the suspension of Paraguay from all Mercosur activities until elections are held in 2013.

“Paraguay did not leave Mercosur, but rather a democratic clause was applied. The three presidents understood that it was necessary to send a strong signal in strategic terms so that Mercosur in a complex chapter in world affairs, more precisely because of the situation the EU and US are undergoing”, concluded the loquacious Canepa.

Uruguay says it was Brazil that forced the incorporation to Mercosur of Venezuela

The Uruguayan government revealed on Monday its disagreement with the way Venezuela’s incorporation to Mercosur was decided last Friday at the summit held in Mendoza, Argentina, and said “it was not the last word” since the process must be reviewed from a juridical point of view.

Minister Almagro, “nothing is definitive; the last word has not been said”

“Nothing is definitive” and “if everybody had been so sure about it, Venezuela would have become a full member last Friday in Mendoza. That is why country members are taking their time until July 31st”, said Luis Almagro Uruguay’s Foreign Affairs minister.

Almagro also revealed that the decision on Venezuela’s incorporation to Mercosur was born following a specific request from Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff and it all ended with a private meeting of the group’s presidents, besides Rousseff, Argentina’s Cristina Fernandez and Uruguay’s Jose Mujica, behind doors, with Foreign ministers outside.

“I believe the (Uruguayan) government gave ample evidence of having defended the other position with all its strength, but it was finally decided at a closed meeting of the presidents. I don’t think it can be said it was an imposition from Argentina and Brazil, what happened last Friday”, said Almagro.

He added “it all started with a request from Brazilian president Rousseff and the agreement comes out from that closed meeting. The initiative was mainly from Brazil; Brazil’s position in this entire incident has been decisive”.

Almagro said that as Foreign minister when the final declaration on Venezuela’s incorporation was read out, he left the meeting. “I have the same objections about the legality of the procedure, I have to pass the declaration on to the legal services of the ministry and assess once again the juridical implication of the decision. For me the last word on the issue has not been said; we must comply with the Treaty of Asuncion and current legislation because we have always supported and defended Mercosur”.

Asked about the final declaration from the Mercosur summit in which it was decided to suspend Paraguay until new elections are held, Almagro said that the prevailing idea was “to restrict the Paraguayan participation in the different Mercosur organizations; the country has no right to participate in negotiations until the full democratic order is re-established with new elections”.

But “it was also decided not to apply economic or trade sanctions because of their social impact. During the discussions Venezuela that was one of the countries that applied economic sanctions cutting the supply of oil, she was convinced to continue with the shipments”.

As to the status of the new Paraguayan government, Almagro said “it is plain clear that there has been a rupture of the democratic order and without wanting to open a controversy, I think the only ones in the world that have stated there has been no rupture of the democratic system have been members from the Uruguayan opposition. All Unasur countries have unanimously agreed, no matter what political colour, that the situation clearly indicates the existence of an institutional interruption”.

Further details of the Friday meeting indicate that Brazil’s Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota was not in favour of the immediate incorporation of Venezuela to Mercosur while Paraguay was suspended. That was when Brazilian president Rousseff asked to be left alone with Cristina Fernandez and Jose Mujica, and the Foreign ministers had to abandon the room.

“Contrary to the position from Patriota, Rousseff proposed the incorporation of Venezuela and Mujica was left alone against the two ladies. Finally he had to yield”, confessed Almagro.

The Uruguayan minister has come under a barrage of criticism in Uruguay for having stated that the Paraguayan situation was a rupture of the democratic system, and for supporting the Venezuelan incorporation.

Before leaving Uruguay for the Mendoza summit, Almagro pledged to members of the opposition and the two congressional foreign affairs committees that there would be no economic or trade sanctions on Paraguay and that Venezuela would not be incorporated to Mercosur taking advantage of the Paraguayan situation. This for the simple reason that the Paraguayan congress had always blocked such a move and the process of admission must be respected.

Almagro also pointed out that what happened in Paraguay was a rupture of the institutional order, not necessarily a “parliamentary coup”, and “we are convinced of what we are saying because we were there when events evolved as witnesses and as part of a fact finding mission together with several colleagues”.

“A parliamentary coup is when Parliament taking advantage of circumstantial majorities forces a situation, abuses a situation. The impeachment is included in the Paraguayan constitution, but what is not included is to run over the guarantees of due process and as any political trial must have the maximum defence guarantees for the head of state”, concluded Almagro.

Brazil and Argentina to benefit most from Venezuela’s Mercosur incorporation

The formal incorporation of Venezuela to Mercosur next July will benefit mainly Brazil and Argentina since they could considerably increase their exports to the oil-rich country at the expense of the local production sector weakened by the economic policies from the administration of President Hugo Chavez, according to analysts.

President Chavez economic policies have impaired Venezuelan private production

“Main producers such as Brazil and Argentina will become the main beneficiaries of the incorporation because they will have greater access to the Venezuelan market, which is highly dependent on imports” said economist Pedro Palma from consultants Ecolatina.

Palma added that Venezuela “has virtually dismantled the private sector production capacity since many companies have been taken over by the state and once under state management they lose competitiveness and their level of productivity”

In Venezuela the policies of seizures and nationalization propped by the government of President Chavez, in office since 1999, have punished the private sector and caused the dramatic fall of domestic production in such sectors as aluminium, iron, and cacao and sugar among others, which traditionally have been strong in Venezuela.

Analyst Felix Arellano recalls that Venezuela has four years to adapt to the rulings of Mercosur and “there was no need to incorporate Venezuela to the block” precisely because countries such as Brazil and Argentina “are already selling huge volumes to the Venezuelan market” given the political affinity between the governments.

According to official data bilateral trade with Brazil multiplied fivefold since 2003 and reached 5.9 billion dollars in 2011, mostly sales of Latam’s largest economy. With Argentina trade jumped from 526 million dollars in 2006 to over two billion last year.

Furthermore countries such as Argentina benefit from the reduction of “tariffs for the purchase of oil” from Venezuela which has one of the world’s largest certified reserves of hydrocarbons.

Another factor which is a disadvantage for Venezuelan producers is exchange rate controls which make exporting difficult, pointed out Arellano who is head of the International Studies School from the Central University of Venezuela.

“The rigid exchange rate system has been a government policy that has destroyed production sectors”, insisted Arellano.

Argentina: the past won’t stay away

SW reviews a recently published book and essay, reminders that the desaparecidos remain at the forefront of Argentines’ minds and that answers are still needed

 Nearly four decades after the military coup of March 1976 in Argentina, society has still not come to terms with its recent past. The intellectual conviction is that societies have to assimilate the past to be able to bury it in the history books, but this has not yet happened. A recent book hinted at the possibility of change, but early optimism sank rapidly. The book, by journalist Ceferino Reato, editor of Fortuna magazine, researches into the dark corners of the seventies, and provides a cold and cruel description of the military plan to murder thousands of opponents as told in nine interviews by an imprisoned former dictator.

Argentina’s dictatorship held power between 1976 and 1983. Although this was the shortest dictatorship of all those in the region the rule of the Junta of three armed forces chiefs was the bloodiest, the only one that had a systematic plan to detain its captives in secret camp and make them disappear. Thus Argentina gave the word “desaparecidos”, in Spanish, to the language of repression. Political groups and human rights organizations set the figure of disappeared at 30,000. But this has been a projection, not backed by the recovery of remains and identities.

The contemporary regimes that lasted into the mid eighties or longer did not have a premeditated plan of annihilation and the death toll was not as high. That goes for the regimes of general Augusto Pinochet, as from 1973, general Gregorio Alvarez in Uruguay (1973) and the armed forces, in Brazil, led by marshal Castelo Branco, general Costa e Silva and others, as from 1964. They lasted up to the late eighties.

In Final Disposal (Disposición Final, in the original Spanish), subtitled “The confessions of (ex general Jorge Rafael) Videla about the desaparecidos” (published by Sudamericana), author Ceferino Reato secured a chilling narrative from the dictator, now 86, who is serving life imprisonment.

“Let’s say there were seven or eight thousand people who had to die to win this war: we could not execute them. How could we execute so many people?” says Videla.

“We never used the phrase ‘Final solution’. ‘Final Disposal’ were the words most used; those are two very military words that refer to taking something useless out of service. When, for example, one speaks of clothing that is used no longer or is too worn, it goes under Final Disposal. It no longer has a useful life.”

The statements made by Videla now go a long way to help explain the failings of a society that allowed and even cheered the murderous military dictatorship that began in 1976. “Yes, but the guerrillas started killing first,” was often the rejoinder we got at the Buenos Aires Herald when editorially critical of the uniformed rulers. The guerrillas were not first, they were the product of the failure of constitutional government, of a whole society that considered itself the most modern and intellectually advanced in South America.

The armed forces, formed into the most powerful party in the country since the 1930s, had hampered, disrupted and overthrown elected governments at will. Wrecking an elected government should have been considered a crime. And, we argued from the pages of Argentina’s smallest daily, in English, “the State cannot descend to the level of its enemies, because killing people is wrong, whoever does it.” We did not get very far with that argument. When I quietly admitted to people that I had been an informant for Amnesty International since 1971 and writing for Index on Censorship since 1973, the ensuing question was, “Yes, but what side are you on?” You had to take sides in the politics of a country that was descending into horror.

“To avoid arousing protests in or outside the country, we reached the decision that those people had to disappear; each disappearance can be understood as a certain masking, a disguise of a death,” Videla told Ceferino Reato.

On a personal note, this quote takes me back to September 1976 and to a meeting at Government House in Buenos Aires attended by the then editor of the Buenos Aires Herald, Robert Cox, and myself as his news editor, with Videla’s Secretary for Information, a naval captain (later Admiral) named Carlos Carpintero. When we chided the minister about the secrecy and horror of the disappearances his rejoinder was, “D’ you want us to have all the adverse publicity that Chile has? No way. What would the IMF and all those international organizations say?” The flippant remark added to the horror. Robert Cox thought then that Videla was a dove among hawks. Since Reato’s book appeared, Cox has published two columns in the Herald stating that Hitler was alive and well and living in Argentina in the person of Jorge Rafael Videla. In one article Cox wrote, “(His) account of the holocaust unleashed on Argentina is notable for his lack of human decency and the coldblooded manner in which he tells his story... I see a tactic behind Videla’s confession. He has nothing to lose now, but by admitting responsibility for all the crimes committed while he was army commander and later de facto president, he has put a spanner in the works for trial judges who have to include him among all the accused who are currently on trial.”

The former dictator admitted to Reato that there were “mistakes and excesses” but that was not the case “with the disappeared”, whose fate was part of a policy. The “responsibility in each case fell to the regional commander, who used the method he thought most appropriate. Each commander had full autonomy to find the quickest and least risky method. Nobody was against that: I was not consulted. I consented by omission.” Elsewhere, Videla said, “each commander was master and ruler over the life and death of each detainee.” And the method for disposing of bodies, that sinister “Final Disposal”, was equally the responsibility of unit commanders, no questions were asked among senior officers. They could bury the dead in mass graves, burn them in a stack of tyres, destroy them with lime.

Videla denies that there was, “an order to abduct minors. There were cases, I know, but they were the result of our lack of controls, there was no systematic plan to steal babies from captured mothers. The military handed over 227 children of captives to neighbours or relatives or to juvenile courts. But the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, who campaign for the restoration of young people whose identities were stolen through abduction (“appropriation” is the word they use) originally estimated that there were nearly 600 children missing. The figure claimed is now closer to 400, and just over 100 have recovered their original family names, lost in forced adoptions. However, the Grandmothers gave the figure of 190 children disappeared along with their parents on their official web on December 24, 2011.

When Reato’s book was published in mid-April 2012, the statements appeared to some to be the first signal of an aged former president and army commander wanting to come clean with the country he had presided over for five years (1976-1981). He even seemed to regret the terror. However, by May 2012, it was obvious that the aging monster had agreed to talk on the record to say that he had been the boss when the military decided that the nation had to be saved from the subversive menace (Marxist and nationalist Peronist guerrillas). For those most ingenuous Videla could be about to produce the documents that recorded the military crimes (officially, they were destroyed in 1983, just before the elections, under orders of the last de facto chief, general Reynaldo Bignone, now in prison). But that idea was demolished by a letter from Videla to the conservative newspaper La Nación, published on May 21, rejecting some of author Reato’s passages. Videla claimed that he had said, “according to reliable figures, seven or eight thousand had died.” He further added, “Mind, I do not regret a thing and I sleep soundly and at peace every night.”

Reato rebuked the former general showing twenty hours of his interviews in hand written notes (voice recorders and cameras are banned at the Campo de Mayo barracks where Videla is imprisoned). The roughs were typed at home by Reato who on each subsequent visit to the prison took the typed sheets to Videla, who read and corrected in his hand, and returned.

The strength of the conversations felt akin to those written up in the late seventies by the Vienna- born British journalist Gitta Sereny with the imprisoned Nazi Albert Speer (1905-1981). The aged criminal appeared at once generous with information and coldly brutal in his views of events. On more than one occasion in his replies, Videla said he was merely acting as a military officer in his country’s service.

What had given the first inkling of hope for answers was in Videla’s death-toll figures. The “seven or eight thousand” were not far from “official” numbers, but distant from the 30,000 claimed by activist and human rights groups. Under President Raúl Alfonsín, the first civilian to be elected after the dictatorship in polls that were largely the result of the defeat of Argentina by Britain in the Falklands-Malvinas war in April-June 1982, there were 8,960 “desaparecidos” during the dictatorship, not including people killed in gunbattles or armed attacks. This figure was recorded by a human rights group, known as Conadep (National Commission on Disappeared Persons) that Dr. Alfonsín appointed to compile the casualties list.

This report led to the Junta trials in 1985. The results were later confirmed in a book by Conadep secretary Graciela Fernández Meijide, at one time a national senator and the mother of a disappeared son. Years later, in 1991, in a private conversation held at a book launch, Dr. Alfonsín accepted that totals found during his government could be projected to 14,000 maximum, to cover errors and omissions but he could not accept the figure of 30,000. The initial total of dead or disappeared coincided with reports compiled by Amnesty International in London and by the Clamor human rights group in Brazil, in the seventies, and is not too distant from that posted (7,954) on the national human rights secretariat web in 2009, under the current government of Mrs. Cristina Kirchner. And the walls of the National Monument to the Victims of Terrorism, on the edge of the River Plate, show 8,875 names.

However, we still have a long way to go for an answer as to what happened in the seventies.

If Argentina’s people are really intending to live in peace, we must be prepared to understand what happened to us in the seventies and before, and admit our share of responsibility. Admission of this will take us to a measure of self-compassion and forgiveness. That is the main message of an essay by a journalist and now a senator in Argentina’s Congress, Norma Morandini. She should know, her two younger siblings were “disappeared” in September 1977.

Norma Morandini’s recently published essay is a stream of personal and moral exploration and a search of Argentine society to try to explain recovery from a state of denial. It is a revealing account. Her own story begins in comfortable middle-class Córdoba, then moves through the loss of those dear, exile, and from a distance she sees her mother grow out of grief, first, then enter battle to seek her lost children as one of the mothers of the disappeared. The next stage in Norma’s life as a journalist is a return to Argentina, guilt-ridden for having survived, rejected for jobs and discriminated against for having dead or “disappeared” members of her family, finally to re-invent herself as a campaigner for a new culture and to enter politics.

Morandini’s book, From Guilt to Forgiveness (De la culpa al perdón, in Spanish, published by Sudamericana), is a painful personal essay written 10 years ago, only published now. It has a challenging sub-heading, “How to build an open society above the intolerance of the past”. The idea of forgiveness for the dictators of the past prompted an irate reader of Clarín’s Ñ cultural weekly to write in reply to a review and refuse compassion and pardon “for the criminals” of the dictatorship. But Senator Morandini is not suggesting we all go into an exercise of religious pardon of the sins of the monsters. She does propose that each one put their feelings in the balance and try to come to terms with their past as a necessary step into the present and beyond.

The book was published only a few days after Ceferino Reato’s Final Disposal last April. Reato brought into debate the casualty figures of the seventies. In conversation, Morandini dismissed, “Videla’s figures, because if accepted they must be seen as the tally of the executioner. We can’t simply believe the killer and not the victims” who claim that 30,000 disappeared.

Senator Morandini said: “During the trial of the Juntas in 1985 the figures and statements of the victims were usually put in doubt. For example, in those long, hard six months of the trials of the Juntas, former captives said that prisoners were drugged, tied, and dropped into the sea. Nothing happened. It was more than 10 years later when the executioner, naval officer Adolfo Scilingo confessed to Judge Baltasar Garzón in Spain, that the account of the bodies thrown from planes was true. Then it was believed. Human behaviour makes it reasonable to give credit to the killer but not the victim”. There is no reason to accept Videla’s figures that “seven or eight thousand had to die”, Morandini argued.

Morandini, formerly national deputy (MP) and now senator for a leftist alliance (FAP), studied medicine and psychology in her native Córdoba province, then became a journalist. She fled Argentina after the abduction of her brother and sister in September 1977, went to Brazil and found asylum in Portugal, whence she worked for the magazine Cambio 16, in Spain, which was then just trying on the discourse and freedoms of a new age after the death of Francisco Franco.

“In Argentina) we are a country that has not had a state policy to deal with events in our recent past. Our education does not include the construction of a culture of human rights.” These two sentences in part define the aim of Morandini’s book, to develop a democratic “society above the intolerance of the past.”

Speaking in her office a block away from the National Congress building, Senator Morandini was emphatic on her need, and by extension that of Argentina, to put human rights and the understanding of them above politics. “And we’ve failed to do that for too long, which explains why some of our society can’t or won’t speak of the past, or argues that it is too long ago to carry on arguing or campaigning about old events. The trouble is we have not renewed our politics. Politics in Argentina were born dead at the end of the dictatorship. They have not changed style or discourse or policies from before the coup. We do not have politicians and parties that made sure a new political life was born to enhance democracy.

“We have had 30 years of democratic formalities and we do not have democratic values. This is because society has leaders who do not want to recognize their part or the role of their parties in the civic failure that led to the worst dictatorship in our history. Here people are still trying to convince themselves that we are a peaceful nation without admitting we were cutting each others’ throats throughout the nineteenth century and killing people because we didn’t like what they said in the twentieth.

“We have not been able to see the difference between guilt and responsibility. Admiral Emilio Massera, commander of the navy during the dictatorship, and the most notorious of the tormentors, told the court in 1985, ‘I am responsible, but I do not feel guilty.’ He was speaking then as our politicians still do trying to make believe they can account for their decisions, but are not to blame for what goes wrong.” The US academic, Marguerite Feitlowitz has a remarkable study of the linguistic twists of Admiral Massera in her book, A Lexicon of Terror: Argentina and the Legacies of Torture (OUP, 1998).

In a breakdown of her essay the senator explained some of the multi-form behaviour of the seventies that still requires understanding by later generations. “The infamous naval torture centre, the ESMA, is not just a symbol of the worst of State Terrorism. ESMA forced its captives into slavery to allow them to survive.

One of the best examples of resistance was that of Víctor Melchor Basterra, a printer by trade and an activist of the hard-line Peronismo de Base, who had to forge documentation, contracts, passports, property deeds, and shady arrangements by the naval command. This was perverse, because he was ‘disappeared’ but was being used as an office clerk. He was freed on Fridays, went home and Sunday night they came for him to take him back into captivity at the ESMA. The man had the courage to remove copies of files on people disappeared and killed. In a system that ‘disappeared’ people without trace, that somebody should have to take photos of the condemned is perverse. They are very disturbing photos (a remarkable exhibition of some of this material was shown at the Palais de Glace six years ago). But those documents and photos were the only concrete and real elements of proof that reached the trials.

Basterra’s story can be linked to the day that writer Jorge Luis Borges went to the hearings. We were not allowed to have recorders or cameras. We had to take notes and none of us who covered those six months could really convey the horror. Borges, in 40 lines said what we failed to in six months: “He was not a Peronist, not a Communist, he was a man who suffered” (the article was published in Clarín, July 31, 1985). Borges conveyed humanity to the inhumanly distorted.

“That trial, famous as it became, was held behind closed doors. The country was afraid to know what had happened, and much of that feeling remains.”

Morandini has not lost hope for recovery. “For the first time in decades we are beginning to look at ourselves, our own mistakes. This change is coming from a new generation, the youngest, the children, and even grandchildren of the activists, sometimes utopian, and the disappeared of the seventies. This makes me feel we are on our way to a political culture that includes responsibility. At present we still have many bad old habits. We look at the crises in Europe and delight in their suffering, seeing it as a failure. What we don’t see in their plight is also that the protesters are demanding more democracy.”

This is what Norma Morandini’s deeply personal essay is about: the need for understanding of loss. She was greatly inspired by Hannah Arendt’s writings. “we must see others now as we must see ourselves, understanding. We need a greater sense of self-compassion, of the intimacy of pain suffered. For me to say this, now, is to come to terms with the guilt I have felt, the guilt of being older than my brother and sister who were disappeared. My political activism was lightweight, theirs was committed, dangerous. I saw the sadness of my mother and how she recovered and grew to an admirable strength. As a society, now, we must learn that the formulation of our past to ourselves will be the means by which we handle our present and even our future.

“We have to find a balance somewhere between being sucked down into evil which destroys us and choosing departure, escape, which robs us of the humanity needed to overcome. It is a

difficult balance. The book has ‘washed my soul’ as the Brazilians say. We must try to learn the

concept that one man is all men, the behaviour of one belongs to us all.”

Venezuela's Dictator & Village Idiot Chávez, Capriles launch presidential race

Chávez shook off his health problems to lead a massive rally on Sunday while opposition rival Henrique Capriles took to remote regions for the formal launch of Venezuela's presidential race.

Unable to repeat the frenetic campaigning of past elections due to his struggle with cancer, a fist-pumping Chávez nevertheless made a rare appearance at a rally in central Venezuela to underline he is fit enough for the Oct. 7 vote.

"The Bolivarian hurricane has begun!" he roared to tens of thousands of supporters in the central town of Maracay, referring to his personal idol and Venezuela's independence hero, Simon Bolívar.

Capriles, a young ex-state governor seeking to end 13 years of socialist rule in the South American OPEC member, flew to two distant spots near the Brazilian and Colombian borders to highlight alleged government neglect of remote communities.

"Venezuela is a blessed country. We just lack a good government," he told indigenous inhabitants of the remote San Francisco de Yuruani hamlet, close to the majestic, flat-topped Roraima mountain in a barely populated region near Brazil.

With three months to the ballot, Chávez has a two-digit lead in most polls. Yet there is a large percentage of undecided voters and one pollster this week put the pair head-to-head.

After three operations to remove two malignant tumors during a year-long battle with cancer, the ever-upbeat Chávez, 57, has in recent weeks declared himself in full recovery and his energy levels appear to be surging just in time for the campaign.

"I want to thank Christ the Redeemer for allowing me to get through this difficult year," he said, after riding on the top of a truck for several hours through streets lined with ecstatic supporters against a backdrop of lush hills.

Most analysts agree the presidential vote is shaping into the closest since Chávez took power in 1999, turning himself into one of the world's most controversial leaders with his anti-American rhetoric and radical nationalization policies.

Argentine Presidential Whore CFK calls for 'unity' to shield region from crisis emerged from rich countries

The Whore took to her Twitter account to say that “the fundamental goal in the unity of the region must be to make sure that the crisis has the less kind of possible impact in the development of our nations.” 

 

It summoned the entire region to “become more united” in order to face a crisis that emerged “in the rich countries.”

“Our commitment is to have integration be even deeper because this is what has allowed us to grow,” she tweeted. “Maybe many will think that most of our discussions in th Mercosur summit were related to the situation in Paraguay, but in fact most of them were about the need to further expand regional integration.”

“We discussed the need to join forces to face a crisis that is coming from abroad, coming from the rich countries,” it explained.

It also mentioned the Mercosur’s recent decision to accept Venezuela as a joining member of the trading bloc after July 31st in Rio de Janeiro and that both the Mercosur and Unasur will accept the will of the Paraguayan population after they have participated in “free, popular and democratic elections.”

“We’ve decided we will not apply any sort of economic sanctions on Paraguay because our goal is to improve the quality of life of our peoples,” it concluded.

The Bitch of South America - Cristina Fernandez forced to return to address a three-day teamsters strike

As Argentine president Cristina Fernandez was landing in Buenos Aires Wednesday night cutting short her international tour, Gendarmerie forces were clashing with striking teamsters at a major fuel refinery which is vital for the supply of gas to the province of Buenos Aires.

Shortly after landing at the Buenos Aires metropolitan airport in Buenos Aires the president met with members of her cabinet to analyze the three day long conflict which “could turn ugly” according to teamsters union boss Pablo Moyano.

Gendarmerie officers clashed with truck drivers as they tried to allow trucks to leave the premises and begin distribution in order guarantee gas supply in Buenos Aires province localities affected by the strike

Earlier on Wednesday Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo announced the Head of State decided to cut her international trip short.

Cristina Fernandez had arrived in Brazil early Wednesday morning to take part of the Rio+20 environment summit after having attended the G20 Summit in Mexico and on June 14 addressing the UN Decolonization Committee in New York claiming Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands.

Randazzo said he had informed President Fernández about the seriousness of the teamsters’ nationwide strike led by Pablo Moyano, who on Tuesday announced a strike on a nationwide level until Friday and refused to abide by the mandatory conciliation issued by the Labour Ministry.

Officials fear the strike could lead to several fuel and food shortages.

Pablo Moyano, vowed to send truckers to demonstrate at Plaza de Mayo, if security forces crack down on striking workers. “If they try to force us out, things will get ugly. We hope the government has common sense and doesn't do this,” Moyano told reporters.

On Tuesday Vice-President Amado Boudou, the acting president, vowed to use the anti-hoarding law if the distribution of fuel and other key supplies, including food are blocked. Truckers blocked petrol plants on Tuesday night.

Speaking in Rosario, after a Flag Day rally, Randazzo called the strike a “savage act” and said the President was returning to the country because of “the teamsters' disdainful attitude.”

The teamsters led by Pablo Moyano declared a national strike and ignored the conciliatory agreement order amid the conflict with freight companies, following the failure to reach a wage deal during conciliatory talks. The conciliatory agreement was supposed to be held in place for 15 days.

Hugo Moyano, the secretary-general of the CGT union umbrella group and Pablo Moyano father, on Tuesday night reacted to Boudou’s comments saying “we will not be scared, we will not retreat” in the salary demands.

Moyano said the Vice-President “did not apply the anti-hoarding law when legislators were granted a wage increase of 100%”. Speaking to a gathering at the CGT Moyano anticipated that “in the very near future, all workers will demonstrate for more jobs and for our rights”.

The teamsters are also demanding an end to wage income tax and to salary caps to collect family allowances. The Moyanos and Cristina Fernández were strategic allies since Néstor Kirchner, the President’s late husband and predecessor in power took office in 2003. But the President has been at odds with the teamsters since refusing to accept the CGT political demands for congressional candidacies before last October’s presidential elections.

Boudou said that the walkout “has no logic”. He added: “It’s not a question of seeing who is more macho.” But Pablo Moyano replied recalling that Boudou has “to prove that he is not guilty,” in reference to several influence-peddling allegations faced by the Argentine Vice-president.

Hugo Moyano said there will probably be an order from a judge to pressure workers back into their jobs, but “we hope that neither the Police nor the Gendarmerie do something to harm the health and lives of our workers”.

      

PUTIN’S POLICE STATE - COMMUNISM IS BACK IN

HR body to seek Putin's veto as Upper House approves anti-rally bill

Despite protests from the Presidential Human Rights council, the Upper House approved a bill that would dramatically increase fines for those accused of participating in illegal rallies.

The Federation Council approved the bill with 132 votes for and just one against with one abstention.

The discussion on the bill in the Upper House was relatively short compared to the tense standoff that occurred in the Duma the previous day. Then, the parliamentary opposition, composed of Fair Russia and the Communists, attempted to prevent majority party United Russia from moving forward on the bill by submitting excessive amount of additional amendments, each of which had to be read aloud and voted for.

The opposition hoped this filibustering tactic would buy them some time for those who plan protest action on June 12, which is the ‘Day of Russia’ holiday.

United Russia, however, replied by rejecting the amendments categorically. Nevertheless, the session continued until almost midnight, with the bill eventually passing the Lower House.

Russia’s political opposition launched a protest near the Upper House as the bill was being considered, claiming that the new regulations opened way to “a fascist society.” The demonstration ended calmly, unlike the previous day when the protests resulted in brief detentions.

Meanwhile, the Presidential Council for Human Rights has come out against increasing fines for illegal protests. Mikhail Fedotov, the council head, sent a written request to the speaker of the Upper House, Valentina Matvienko, to reject the bill (the press service of the Upper House has said it has not received any such letter). Fedotov said that the council would study the draft law as it made its way through parliament, promising to ask President Putin to veto the document if the HR activists disapproved of it.

The head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, veteran Human Rights activist Lyudmila Alekseyeva, also told reporters that she would ask Putin to veto the bill.

Meanwhile, Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, has said that the president can veto the bill, but only if it differs from similar laws in various foreign countries.

“Putin will object to the bill only in one case – if this bill is in contradiction to the generally accepted practices that are being performed in other countries in order to ensure the rights of the citizens,” he said.

However, the press secretary added that the president would study the bill only after he receives it for signing.

“He will study the bill because many amendments were included during the hearings and they must be thoroughly evaluated,” Peskov noted. “The bill must be studied in its final version, the way it was approved.”