Ecuador referendum row escalates

[Judi Lynn]

Last Updated: Thursday, 8 March 2007, 04:48 GMT
Ecuador referendum row escalates

The referendum will decide whether to form a national assembly
Political tension is rising in Ecuador over a referendum on the drafting of a new constitution, planned for 15 April.

The opposition-controlled Congress has announced plans to impeach four members of the seven-seat electoral tribunal, which approved the referendum.

Meanwhile, the tribunal's president is seeking to fire 57 lawmakers who voted on Tuesday to oust him from office.

Left-wing President Rafael Correa, who was elected in November, is seeking the referendum to restructure Congress.
(snip/...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6429191.stm

[Peace Patriot]

1. It sounds like the opposition in Ecuador is as tyrannical and anti-democratic as Bushite

Republicans. How do you prevent the people from voting for something that is obviously in their interest? You use every questionable and unlawful tactic you can to prevent the vote from ever taking place. The fascists in this case are defying a 60% mandate given by the voters to the new president, Rafael Correa, to restructure the government and the economy.

And here's what it's all about: "If Mr Correa has his way, ties with the IMF and the World Bank could be cut and the country's foreign debt restructured. Its oil wealth, he has said, will go back to the people."

The article also states: "Opinion polls suggest about 70% of Ecuadorians are in favour of an assembly."--even more than voted for Correa! This reminds me of the 74% in our own country who oppose the Iraq War and want it ended. Meanwhile, war profiteer Senators (and Israeli agents), like Sen. Lieberman, are blocking Congressional action to stop the war. 26% vs. 74%--and the 26% rule! (--and our soldiers and the Iraqis keep dying!) That's about the way it has been in Ecuador.

The BBC article concludes: "Ecuador is no stranger to political turmoil and there is growing concern the spat could deteriorate in the coming days."

"Growing concern..." Hm-m. Could that be related to Herr Bush being on his way with a $4 billion check (on US taxpayer future revenues) for the thugs, murderers and drug traffickers in Colombia (the fascist paramilitary army for destabilizing the Andean region)? Fascists thugs were at work in Bolivia a few weeks ago, beating up peaceful protesters and causing mayhem for President Evo Morales (who handled it very well; he asked the protesters to use the electoral process to prevent the rich rightwing landowners from splitting the resource-rich provinces off from the central government (to deny any benefit to the poor from those resources)). When outnumbered, the rightwing resorts to lawlessness and brutality to get their way, and Bush and his rich fascist pals in South America no doubt have plans to employ these tactics in Ecuador. The BBC article masks this intention as "growing concern" that the situation "could deteriorate." Whatever do they mean?


----------

I just want to comment on the corporate media's use of the designation "left-wing" or "leftist" to describe South American leaders, i.e., (in this BBC article) "Left-wing President Rafael Correa, who was elected in November, is seeking the referendum to restructure Congress."

The BBC is certainly a cut above--maybe several cuts above--our war profiteering corporate news monopolies (the New York Times, Faux News, etc.) But still, they fail to describe George Bush as the "rightwing President of the U.S." --or, more deservedly, "the fascist President of the U.S.," or "leader of the fascist junta in the U.S." And yet they invariably say "Left-wing President Rafael Correa" (or "leftwing President Hugo Chavez," or "left-wing President Evo Morales," or "left-wing President Nestor Kirchner"--there are a lot of them.)

"What "leftist" really means in South America is "majorityist"--politicians, at long last, representing the MAJORITY, as the result of long hard work by the OAS, the Carter Center, EU election monitoring groups and local civic groups on TRANSPARENT elections. But, as the result of the righwing fascist takeover of our news media, the word "leftist" has been slimed with bad connotations here. It is almost an epithet, implying "gun toting leftist revolutionary" or "communist." The poor shooting or guillotining the rich and seizing their property. No matter that, in South America it has largely been the rich torturing, raping, murdering and 'disappearing' tens of thousands of poor indians and union leaders and community activists, and seizing--in the case of the indigenous--THEIR lands. Our media uses the word "leftist," very inaccurately, as a threat.

Further, "left-wing" implies a faction of the country. 70% is not a faction. 70% is the overwhelming will of the people. It is not "leftist" to want a representative National Assembly. It is DEMOCRACY.

I use "leftist" as a handy way to describe the new South American leaders, but I almost always put "majorityist" in parenthesis after it, for accuracy, i.e., "the leftist (majorityist)" governments of Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua. It is an important point. And until the BBC starts calling Bush a "rightest," I won't believe that they are truly being objective in their description of the politics of the Americas.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Your comments on "leftist" as it is tossed around so much by the corporate media are helpful.

You'd think more people would pick up on this bizarre rush to get in front of the readers' understanding of the stories by planting "leftist" in every article, before every non-fascist Latin American leader's name. It's continual, non-stop brain washing, TELLING you how to view these popularly elected Presidents BEFORE you know the facts.

It's ultra-dirty, it disrespects the reader's right to know the truth by superimposing political values that spin to the right first, and before everything else. It's the RIGHT-WING which has wrought havoc all over the Latin American countries, and the Caribbean, torturing and slaughtering hundreds of thousands for decades, wiping entire villages of native citizens right off the face of the map, and sending any survivors running into the forest to hide in order to live.

You're absolutely right, in South America, "leftist" means "majoritist," not a fringe lunatic.

[Peace Patriot]

2. CONTEXT: Bush is going to So. America next week to try to destroy the democracy

movement there. When people achieve democracy, they act in their own interests, and not in the interests of global corporate predators and the super-rich. That is why the thugs have destroyed OUR democracy, with electronic voting run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations--among other methods. Bush, the mean little bully puppet of the global corporate predators needs to perform for his masters, and try to stop all this democracy, and regional cooperation and self-determination in Latin America, and try to get these countries back under the thumb of the fascist rich elites, US-based corporations and their tools such as the World Bank and the IMF (--big loans to third world countries; the rich rip off the money; the poor are left to pay the debt, and the IMF requires drastic cuts in all social programs, and favoritism to big foreign businesses as terms of repayment--one of the worst scams ever perpetrated against the world's poor).

Rafael Correa, in Ecuador--like Nestor Kirchner in Argentina--has been mandated by the people to free Ecuador from this onerous debt--debt that is extremely retrograde, and of no benefit to the country, its people, its businesses. Correa, a US-educated leftist economist, knows how to do this--not by defaulting, but by paying some of it off quickly, perhaps with easy-term loans from Venezuela (they have a new fund for this--which Venezuela organized), and restructuring the rest, so that it isn't such a drag on the society and the economy. (Think of a worker here--very reliable, good worker, always pays her debts--but who gets hit with a big medical expense, and has to put it on a credit card, then the credit card jackal jacks the interest up to 25% and hits the worker with all sorts of hidden fees; the worker can never get out from under the debt, and has to curtail all purchases, and not buy that house she had her eye on, etc. The debt, and the usurious lender, drag her and the economy down. The World Bank in a sense created a credit card for South America, at usurious rates, which destroyed some countries--notably Argentina--squeezed every dime out of these countries that it could, to the benefit of foreign bankers and conglomerates, and created a huge retro drag on recovery.)

South America is rebelling against these and other brutal practices. The Bush Cartel had counted on the World Bank to open these countries to resource rape. It wants the oil, gas, minerals and other resources of the Andean democracies in particular, but it first has to destabilize and destroy those leftist (majorityist) governments (Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela) and the huge leftist movements in Peru and Paraguay (that threaten majority representation in the next election cycles). The Cartel's plan was to use the brutal, drug trafficking Colombian paramilitaries to stir up trouble (kill peasants and leftists) in border areas, and cause civil unrest and chaos (--much as the Bush death squads are doing in Iraq), to try to bring these governments down. Happily, some very courageous folks in Colombia (and also Guatemala--another Bush stop) are currently exposing these paramilitaries, in a huge scandal that is rocking the pro-Bush Colombian government (and the rightwing government of Guatemala). One of the Colombian plots was to assassinate Hugo Chavez. (That got exposed.) So Bush is going to have a harder time assembling the murderers and torturers he needs to accomplish the goals of his corporate masters. (I think the bargain is no jail time for Bush and Cheney.)

Bush is also intent on "divide and conquer." He wants to split Brazil off from its friendship and cooperation with the Andean democracies, and stop the momentum toward a South American Common Market. He will also try to drive a wedge between Brazil and Uruguay (which have some issues that one could drive a wedge into, to cause trouble). President Lula da Silva (former steelworker) of Brazil recently visited (leftist) President Vasquez of Uruguay, in anticipation of Bush's ill-intended visit, to head off any such trouble. I think both leaders realize that they have the advantage with Bush, and I hope they use it to the benefit of their people and their region.

It is interesting the countries that Bush is NOT visiting (and probably CANNOT) visit: Paraguay (very interesting--big leftist movement led by Bishop Lugo), Chile (President Batchelet tortured by Pinochet--Mr. Guantanamo Bay not welcome?), Peru ("free tradist" and very corrupt President Alan Garcia, but big leftist movement in progress), Argentina (where the Bush twins recently cavorted--very feisty and radical population--President Kirchner recently said that "Hugo Chavez is my brother"), Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador ('go jump in a lake, Mr. Danger'), and Nicaragua (Sandinistas elected).

He's going to Mexico (rightwing/corporate government, stolen election), Guatemala (rightwing government/big paramilitary scandal), Colombia (rightwing government/even bigger paramilitary scandal), Brazil and Uruguay (his hopes for "divide and conquer").

---------------------------------------

Throw Diebold, ES&S and all election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW! Let's get ourselves a leftist (majorityist) government that is responsive to the Evo Morales's of this world (first indigenous president of Bolivia): "We want partners, not masters."

[Judi Lynn]

5. Article written immediately after the Monterrey Summit,2-04:

January 31 / February 1, 2004

Media at the Monterrey Summit
Further Setbacks for the "Inevitable Consensus"
By PHILLIP CRYAN

With many South American heads of state repeatedly blaming Washington's economic policies for increased poverty, journalists at the Special Summit of the Americas had an easy time breaking from years of tepid coverage of trade. All they had to do was write down quotes, such as Brazilian President Luis Inacio ("Lula") da Silva calling Washington's prescriptions "perverse" and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias calling them "infernal."

The summit, which brought together the political leaders of all the hemisphere's nations except Cuba in the Mexican city of Monterrey on January 12 and 13, produced few concrete results. But it demonstrated this new truth: International media can no longer ignore Latin American opposition to the U.S. economic agenda.

Although U.S. media did not treat the Monterrey summit as major news, many news outlets covered it and most coverage highlighted Latin American discontent with the "Washington Consensus" - the principle, aggressively pushed by the U.S. government since the late 1980s, that the best development path for poor countries is to open their economies, privatize State-owned industries, and cut government budgets.
(snip)

And why are they there? Mass media can't simply ignore the statements and actions of major elected officials - even if coverage sometimes openly attacks them or (more often) subtly, even unintentionally undermines their credibility. And there are a whole lot of major elected officials in Latin America right now malcontent with U.S. policies, many of them having won campaigns specifically because they are seen as part of a loose new progressive bloc able to stand up to Washington and press for social priorities.
(snip/...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/cryan01312004.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You may remember _Bush sent Colin Powell to Brazil to warn Lula da Silva to stay away from Hugo Chavez. Very crude meddling. It makes the entire country look stupid.

[David__77]

3. Don't purge the "lawmakers," just ignore them.

But once they cross lines legally, arrest and try them.

[manic expression]

6. Yes

we shouldn't worry about bourgeois lawmakers, they are irrelevant and are best ignored.