Noam Chomsky discusses U.S. policy in Venezuela and 
Excellent interview with Noam Chomsky extracted from
www.aporrea.org ... mental clarity is a rare commodity in this world and reading this man see things as clear as polished glass ...
E nterview: Noam Chomsky discusses U.S. policy in Venezuela and
By: Miguel Vera / Aporrea.org
Publication Date: 05/05/09
Venezuela, Palestine and Israel
MV: Prof. Chomsky, As you know, the government of Venezuela has a clear policy position on the conflict in Gaza, which has been criticized by some, and which according to them, this position has been responsible for anti-Semitic sentiments that led to attacks on a synagogue in Caracas. What is your opinion about Venezuela's position on the conflict in Gaza?
Chomsky: personally think that the position taken by Venezuela was correct. It was a savage assault and criminal population which is basically caged and can not escape. With this high-tech attack and highly destructive, not only have probably killed about 1,300 people, also destroyed the agricultural system and that there was little manufacturing.
This company has been under permanent siege. It is an occupation, aggression should not be called because it is an occupied territory, there has been no time when it has not already been, and is under direct attack. In addition, attacks must not only about Gaza, but Palestine in its entirety.
With the support of the United States, Israel consistently carries out criminal activities in the West Bank. Israel does not care much about Gaza would be happy to rot and sink into the sea. What matters is whether the West Bank, there is no land value, arable land, there are the pleasant suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Want to seize as much as possible. There are all sorts of interesting cultural and historical interests alleged.
So they continued seizing of resources, land, water mainly from the West Bank in order to divide it into unviable cantons in which the population to rot, and essentially, in the long run, there is an exodus. This is totally criminal, they know it, is beyond question.
In 1967, when they began the settlements, their own advisors Legal informed them that their actions were in direct violation of the basic principles of International Humanitarian Law and Geneva Conventions, and they knew it. This has since been ratified by the international court, and numerous Security Council resolutions, what happens is that there is no debate on this issue.
Israel is to empower these lands for their resources and for other reasons, and the United States support it. They managed to delete almost all the resistance in the West Bank by force. In part by its own strength, which is overwhelming, and in part to collaboration. US-Jordan
train military forces for the political party with which they have choice. Its main function was to suppress demonstrations, protests and arrest supporters. Is a typical strategy of imperialism. Develop a partnership between the colonial forces to control the population. So
protest have been deleted in the West Bank. Have yet to fully master the protest in Gaza, so destroy and destroy the area. Aside from the savagery and cowardice of course, these actions are totally criminal. So of course it must protest.
Europe's position is shameful, say they do not seem right but supportive. The United States' position is laughable. Most countries fear the United States - and with good reason - so who are silent and are cast aside.
Venezuela's position is entirely honorable and has nothing to do with antisemitism. The desecration of the synagogue was an anti-Semitic act, but it was operated by the Government. The same has happened in France, and to my knowledge also in the United States. As far as I have understood, the Government took a strong position and condemned the act, found guilty and are being brought to justice. Are the actions that each country should take.
Palestine and the blockade of Cuba
MV: Do you think that if more countries had to take a clear position regarding the occupation in Gaza, it could have an effect in this situation?. If public opinion is mobilized and more countries take similar measures which took Venezuela, do you think this would effect?
Chomsky: First of all, we must be clear, not just Gaza. In the United States and Israel would like us to concentrate our only in Gaza, and to overlook the fact that Palestine is a unit, Gaza and West Bank are a unit. In fact, it may be a larger question.
least under international law Israel's territorial boundaries were created in June 1967, the remaining Making up 22 percent Palestine is occupied territory. This includes two separate areas, noncontiguous, Gaza and West Bank. But, essentially a unit.
If the resistance to criminal acts in the West Bank Israel is legitimate, then it must be legitimate resistance in Gaza. I told this to the Israeli press and I will tell you, too, though attacks in Gaza are particularly vicious, murderous and destructive, which happens every day in the West Bank is another way to destroy this town.
is what the late Israeli sociologist, Baruch Kimmerling, called "politicide", the destruction of a nation. It may not kill each individual, but destroy the nation.
What happens daily in the West Bank as well. In fact, Israel took advantage of that attention was focused on Gaza to expand and scale their infrastructure and development projects in the West Bank settlement. All designed to make politicide.
So, yes, we must take this into account. If more countries take a stronger stance, could influence the masters. In reality the United States run the show, not a secret. If Europe had the will to take an independent position, would take effect, because Europe is powerful and important. The world's smallest countries can not do much.
In an international survey recently made by one of the most important survey of international public opinion, asked people around the world what he thought about various countries. Israel was right in the background, is a country feared, hated and regarded as the most dangerous in the world for many countries. The only country that approached him was perhaps Iran, which was ranked almost at the same level. But this does not matter as long as the master of the universe to support them.
So the real question is whether public opinion in other countries affects the decisions of the U.S. government. It is not easy, even the American public affects the decisions of his Government with regard to many issues.
Take an old case in the Western Hemisphere: Cuba. Sanctions and terror against Cuba from the United States are criminal activities and global diplomacy all objects. The final vote in the United Nations I was 180 to 3, United States, Israel and a Pacific island, I think Micronesia, which means that in reality is only the United States. Israel has to play along to the U.S., but in fact violated the sanctions, so it is only the United States.
The American public strongly favored the lifting of sanctions for decades, but this had no effect on politics outside, and this is not the only case. There is a rift between public opinion and U.S. policy, not a functioning democracy, contrary to the propaganda. Unless public opinion is organized and active, no matter what people think. It has been organized around other issues, but it has not been the case with regard to Cuba, which is why government policies have run their own course.
The same is true concerning the support of aggression, atrocities and expansion of Israel. While the U.S. government's support, will require powerful external forces so that these policies are changed. Any action taken is important, so if Venezuela is important, if France is to have more importance, it's just that the world operates through the power and not justice. That's the way but we disagree.
U.S. Foreign Policy on Venezuela, Russia and Iran
MV: Professor, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice once said that the Chavez administration was a dangerous, evil force in Latin America. President Barack Obama has referred to Chavez as a force that has halted progress in the region. He also mentioned Chavez has supported terrorist activities. It seems that there is little difference between what was said during the Bush Administration and apparently will be Obama's position on Venezuela. How do you see this? Do you think this may be lack of information from the new administration or a continuation of the same policies?
Chomsky: is a continuation of the same policies. In fact, returning to Condoleezza Rice, rarely agree with her but in some ways I am. Recently she wrote an article which predicted that the foreign policy of the Administration Obama would be the second Bush administration.
The two Bush administrations had some differences: the first was much more violent, aggressive, arrogant in his fist to show the world, and led us to disaster after disaster, and an opinion about the U.S. decline. In this United States are more hated in the world than ever before, this is detrimental to interests that are crucial.
This company is basically run by companies. Is formally a democracy, but in reality is a society run by companies and businesses, and their interests are affected by these events. So there was pressure to have a change in the Bush administration. In fact, some of the most destructive, brutal and undemocratic were removed, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al. It was Cheney and assistant to Bush who, basically, was the administration. So the policy changed and moved toward the center.
There is no indication that Obama is going to change these policies. In fact, in some instances he has taken a more aggressive stance, as with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama is an intelligent person and I am sure that what he says has been carefully prepared by him and his advisers, and expresses what he wants. But in all his statements have been deliberately vague.
campaign Obama campaign won an advertising industry for the best marketing campaign of 2008. Beat Apple computers. Senior industry executives were very effusive, literally candidates said they had sold the same way as the commodity markets for 30 years, since the days of Reagan, but this has been the highest achievement they have had. This will have great effect on the Executive Directors, the corporate culture will adopt this model to market other things. This campaign was a marketing campaign.
They are very clear that they have to refer certain matters, and concentrate only on empty slogans that serve to uplifting, what the press called "sorving rhetoric" such as "hope," "change", "change we can believe." But if people question what steps to take will need to do well enough to understand. Maybe he can find something on their website. But these were the themes of the campaign, and was successful as a marketing campaign. In fact, there are studies that show, and the industry they loved.
is much talk of the massive support from small contributors, but was actually minimal. Financial support was mostly given by financial industries, law firms are also lobbyists, and policy course will reflect this. Already shown by his selection of cabinet officials and advisers. It's basically a centrist Democratic administration, with which people are familiar, and not all that different from Bush's second term. Only differ on some issues.
is reduce the number of extreme violations of the law and the constitution, carried out by the Cheney-Bush administration, including torture at Guantanamo and the illegal surveillance, but almost any of the candidates, including McCain, have done the same .
This administration will be less confrontational with the rest of the world, but will follow the same policies. This can be noticed with the recent attacks on Gaza. The campaign in Gaza was a striking example. It was carefully planned months in advance, and the Israeli press says it openly. Was meticulous and clearly planned to make an end just before the inauguration, she completed a day before taking possession.
This is no coincidence, since Obama made it possible to pretend that he could not say anything about it. While the atrocities taking place said, "Only a president, therefore I can not say anything about it." Of course he thought about everything else, and did not stop to speak about the "hateful ideology" behind los ataques terroristas en Mumbay. Él sí podía opinar sobre esto, pero no podía hablar de lo otro porque, "sólo hay un Presidente".
La prensa y los electores se tragaron este pretexto, pero los ataques en Gaza tenían que terminar antes de que tomara posesión. Pero, ya es el Presidente, ¿Entonces qué dice ahora?De hecho, su primera declaración sobre política exterior fue referente a Israel y Palestina, en conexión con el nombramiento de George Mitchell como mediador.
Mencionó también algo acerca de la paz entre Israel y Palestina, sobre una propuesta sustanciosa, lo cual fue muy cuidadosamente elaborado. Dijo que había una propuesta importante la cual él aplaude, a saber, the Arab League Initiative, which is the normalization of relations with Israel, which Arab states should strive. But he knows perfectly well that this is not the Arab League proposed. The Arab League proposes the establishment of two states (Israel and Palestine) with its international borders, according to international consensus, a position that the U.S. has blocked more than 30 years. It is in this context would be directed towards establishing normal relations with Israel. Obama
who ignores the essential component of the proposal is not accidental. He knows what he is doing, is not stupid. What that means is that continue to do whatever, including continue to block international consensus regarding a political settlement, but we want to normalize relations with Arab states that are our customers.
must have required tremendous discipline for the press and intellectuals to pretend not to have realized this. What happens is that this is perfect obedience. Simply follow the steps to his master, as the goose steps. The same happens when you interview, repeated that he is very talkative and full of hope.
The statement on foreign policy that followed was a speech by Vice President, Joe Biden, who was also praised for being very communicative, and want to extend the hand of friendship to Iran and Russia. Biden is not as arrogant as John Bolton, who sent them to sink into the nearest lake, rather it is very kind and sympathetic words used, as we are all good friends, and others.
But look at the content. With regard to Russia said they would continue placing missile defense systems near their borders. He knows very well that Russia sees this as a potential attack on its nuclear deterrent capabilities. That is why Russia opposes. It has nothing to do with Iran.
U.S. argues that Iran is to prevent firing missiles, that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and not have it. But anyone with head on straight knows that even if Iran had missiles and nuclear weapons in Europe would not attack unless evaporator would like to be instantly, and there is no reason to think that Iran wants this.
So I think this is a big fraud. If you really were concerned about an Iranian threat which does not exist, had put the missile defense system in the South, in a place like Azerbaijan, as proposed by Russia. But do not care. What they really want is to threaten the Russian nuclear deterrent.
U.S. strategic analysts are aware of this. It can be read in major publications. (The missile bases) at the moment not induce immediate reactions (the Russians) would not work, but can serve as a basis for Russia to react, it is also a provocation to Russia.
Biden insisted on speaking softly instead of being arrogant to say that we will continue these policies. Have continued to prowl the Russian territories in Europe.
What about Iran? Said we can have conversations if they abandon their illicit nuclear programs. What are these "illicit nuclear programs"? Iran is a signatory of the NPT. Is within their rights to conduct nuclear programs to develop nuclear energy.
The vast majority of countries the world agree with this, but are members of the Non-Aligned Movement, so do not "exist." Everything you read in the West is that Iran is defying the international community. The "international community", meaning anyone who has enough weapons to give head injuries to others.
If most countries do not agree with the "international community" does not matter because they do not exist. What Americans are saying? A large majority believes that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy. But as well as non-aligned countries, U.S. citizens are also not part of the community international.
So when you read articles in The New York Times or the British press about challenges to the international community, they actually refer to the U.S. government.
What are these programs illegal? Are weapons programs? Perhaps, but U.S. intelligence does not. Only a year ago the national intelligence said they felt confident that Iran has continued its weapons program five years ago. The government does not sit well with this, so gone goose steps that had left the press after investigating the matter. It disappeared from the media. Intellectual commentators do not touch the subject.
So far, government orders, it is a fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. And if they are, frankly does not surprise me. In fact, it would be surprising is that they are doing, if only as a deterrent. Are completely surrounded by countries that possess nuclear weapons are the United States will gain in military spending the rest of the world combined, and a State which is very violent, just invaded two countries. It would be surprising that do not develop nuclear deterrents. In fact, a couple of years, one of the foremost military historians of Israel, Martin van Crevel, wrote an article in the International Herald Tribune in which he said that he does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but if not being developed are crazy, especially after the invasion of Iraq.
So they might have weapons, U.S. intelligence may be wrong, but nothing gives Biden the right at all, to speak of "illicit nuclear programs", he has no evidence that these programs exist, the problem is that the United States they want to develop. And its nuclear program is precisely the topic being discussed from the point of view of the United States. There are other issues with regard to Iran, but this is the point of discussion by United States. Iran has other problems, but is not part of the world either, does not possess enough weapons to be part of the world. So from the standpoint of the U.S. and Europe the only issue that matters is that of nuclear weapons and what they call "support for terrorism." Supporting terrorism means supporting the resistance to the criminal acts of the United States and Israel, this for them is terrorism.
These are issues that should be discussed in negotiations. Saying that only negotiated under their conditions, that is really not interested in reaching a negotiation. This was the substance of Biden's speech. It was such a friendly way, with a friendly tone, with pleasant words, for this is described as talkative. From the standpoint of U.S. and European elites, this step is quite positive, as would love to support violence and aggression. It useful. But if you do someone like Cheney or Boulton, can not keep the game because his style is very offensive and unacceptable, but would like to see someone like Obama do as speech in a friendly way, went to law school, is black, so they can pretend they're not racists, even more racist than Americans, so that for them it is nice.
But look at the content, Condoleezza Rice is, more or less correct in their assessment. Nothing indicates otherwise.
Posada Carriles and Guantanamo
MV: Professor, one of the claims made by the Venezuelan government for any better relations with the United States government was the extradition of notorious terrorist Posada Carriles. It also requested the extradition of two former military officers responsible for the bombs to diplomatic missions in Caracas. Do you think the U.S. government would give these terrorists the Venezuelan government?, After all they will close the Guantanamo base, and this gesture was a sign of respect for human rights.
Chomsky: close Guantanamo because it was not useful for any purpose and had become a major embarrassment to the United States, both internationally as well as nationally. In addition, there was a vast amount of literature written by legal professionals and other professions, condemning Guantanamo.
was a lie he had to get evidence of torture at Guantanamo. The discussions in this regard were very elaborate. You do not need evidence. The simple fact that there Guantánamo tells any rational person that Guantanamo is a torture cell, if not, why not built in the State of New York. They said it was risky to allow such dangerous people to be in New York. But it is not dangerous. If you think it is dangerous why not put them in a maximum security prison. In fact, maximum security prisons in America are not so different from Guantanamo. There also torture prisoners.
Guantanamo was opened on foreign soil to pretend that he is outside the jurisdiction of domestic law and international law. No other reason for having done so.
This tells us that this is indeed a torture cell. Of course the evidence has come to light tells us that this is so. The prison does not makes no sense for practical purposes, and, like Abu Ghraib, is a major embarrassment for the United States. So that the closure not to be ashamed. But this is not a step to nowhere.
reference to the terrorist Orlando Bosch is the main, Posada Carriles is the other, and there are a few more. United States has protected them for years. There is something called the Bush Doctrine, which is considered the de facto principle of international law by prominent professors of Harvard University.
The Bush Doctrine says that a country that harvests terrorist is as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Therefore should be treated as such. This means that Bush is calling bomb United States. Should be put on trial for treason, and that is calling the U.S. bombing explicitly. There is no doubt that these people are terrorists. In the case of Orlando Bosch, have already been 20 years.
The Department of Justice and the FBI accused him of about 30 terrorist acts. They wanted him deported as a threat to the security of the United States. George Bush I was granted a presidential pardon. Now walk happily Miami, and was recently joined Posada. So if it is true that the Bush Doctrine is a de facto principle of international law, the attacks of September 11 would be legitimate.
But they are not alone, Emmanuel Constant, one of the leading murderers in Haiti under the death squads, and who in fact was supported by Clinton, but dare not say. He lives quietly in New York for years. Haiti tried to extradite him, but the U.S. did not bother to respond. Why bother to respond to Haiti? Constant is responsible for killing about 4,000 people, quite serious. He was the head of a terrorist organization in Haiti. He was recently arrested for a minor infraction. In fact, Posada was tried only for violating immigration laws, not for putting a bomb in the Cubana de Aviacion.
I see no indication that things will change. There is almost no pressure on the public level because almost no one handles this information, unless you're really involved in these matters. If you conduct a survey on this subject in America, hardly anyone would have any knowledge on this subject.
The New York Times and the media war
MV: Professor, give us an idea of \u200b\u200bhow the U.S. media. How do you see the corporate media coverage of them on Venezuela?. For example, in 2007 an article appeared in the New York Times written by Simon Romero, which argues that Venezuela's arms spending has climbed to the highest levels of the world. Romero claims that Venezuela is reaching the level of buyers such as Pakistan and Iran.
Chomsky: I'm sure that Venezuela is pleased to be able to buy weapons from U.S. or France but not allow it. This story is old. Romero is not a fool, he knows the history of Latin America.
When, under the Eisenhower Administration, the U.S. wanted to overthrow the democratic government of Guatemala (Jacobo Arbenz), how it was achieved, first with many threats - and the U.S. does not threaten a joke, threat very seriously - In addition to threats of slander, the branded communists.
when Guatemala tried to get arms to defend the United States, blocked. Tried to acquire weapons of France, but the U.S. forced France not to send arms. They wanted them to get weapons from the East. Guatemala finally able to get the weapons in Czechoslovakia, which caused great anger as they felt that this was threatening the entire continent. This served as the basis for the propaganda that the U.S. government used before the invasion.
Latin America disagreed, but was being terrorized by the United States. Privacy in Guatemala supported, but not publicly dared. They tried to do the same with Cuba. In fact there are documents that prove it. Britain advised the U.S. to try to force Cuba to buy weapons in the East, so they have a propaganda base to attack. The Cubans ended up buying arms from Russia.
tried the same with Nicaragua. In the eighties the United States made a great effort to ensure that the Sandinistas buy weapons from Russia, and Libya, or any place that could potentially benefit. But they did not. Not fall into the trap.
So did the U.S. believe that Nicaragua had bought arms from Russia. U.S. strongly opposed the 1984 elections in Nicaragua, as they would be monitored and would enjoy credibility, would be intensely monitored by foreign experts, who say that the elections were clean, but under the circumstances was impossible.
A country that is being destabilized by large-scale terrorism, can not have fair and clean elections. This is as a rule. And how it blocked? Through a successful propaganda effort. While conducting the elections, the Reagan Administration flooded the country with stories recounted as Russia sent advanced weapons to Nicaragua. Of course, these stories were false, but still were published in a number of covers and headlines.
elite opinion U.S. was divided in an interesting way, the group of hawks said, okay, let's bomb Nicaragua, the group of pigeons, which included moderate senators said they could not be true, we need to know if it's true . But, if true, we have to bomb Nicaragua because they were not allowed to have possession of these things.
But why Nicaraguans want weapons? They needed the weapons because the CIA had full control of its airspace and used it to send commands to the terrorist army (the Contras) so that they knew how to dodge the Nicaraguan army and to attack soft targets such as cooperatives farmers. It was not a current guerrilla group, as computers and aircraft had giving the orders. Nicaragua
wanted to defend its air space, so if any acquired (anti-aircraft weapons) had been completely legitimate. But it was really a travesty that he succeeded in undermining the reality of elections, which, according to U.S. history, never took place. It is difficult to find any reference on this election in the history books.
This is a standard technique, and would like to use it against Venezuela. That Venezuela should or should not do, would fall into the trap. But it is a very old trap. Romero certainly knows this history. Either way, what kind of threat posed Nicaragua, who is going to attack? Looking back, it is difficult to understand if Ronald Reagan was a man or not. The truth is put his cowboy boots and declared a U.S. national emergency by the national security threat posed Nicaragua. He said that the Nicaraguan army was only two days of Texas, and that practice would be destroyed and the people that did not seem funny.
reminds me of an incident that happened, I guess in 1961, when Kennedy was trying to get the OAS to support the sanctions against Cuba, since this was a security threat Western Hemisphere. Most countries agreed by the fear he had. Mexico was one of those who refused. Mexican Ambassador told Kennedy that if returned to Mexico and said that Cuba was a threat to security, 40 million Mexicans would die laughing. It is true that this should raise a laugh.
But this did not cause laughter. Here fell for it. Here Nicaragua was a threat to security, Grenada was a threat to security. The Russians could not even find it on maps even as the world capital of nuts. Although that represented a security threat, and that is why we had to invade.
This is what you sell people in the U.S., and is understandable. International affairs are handled like a mafia. If anyone dares to challenge the best man, perhaps a grocer who refuses to pay protection fee, they must send their weapons to kill it so it would make an example.
For more insignificant it may seem, to them any challenges to its rules is serious because it gives others the idea that they do not have to pay their share. So if Maurice Bishop of Grenada was a cooperative system efficiently, the Carter administration declared him a threat to our security. The weaker the country, the greater the threat. Because if they are can get away with it, then the next neighbor thinks it can also do.
If we look at the registry of documents we realize that America is a very liberal country, more than any other country I know. We have a large internal documentation file. In the case of Cuba, Guatemala, and elsewhere, the threat was what Henry Kissinger called a contagious virus. Other countries think that they would be doing well. He was referring to Allende's Chile. Allende said was a virus that could spread in Southern Europe.
Now, Kissinger did not believe that Allende's army would land on the Grid. What we do believed, and may have had reason is that if parliamentary democracy leads to moderate social reforms in Chile, could also strengthen groups in Italy and Spain that were heading in this direction. So they had to cut from the root.
This is one of the most important principles in international affairs, is located in the historical record appears explicitly in the records of documents. It requires immense discipline on the part of the educated classes to avoid it. What I see are the pretexts used for each case. Romero's case just fits into an old tradition.
America America and the Monroe Doctrine
MV: Finally, give us your comments on the shift to the left in Latin America at this critical juncture and its ideas to grassroots organizations in Venezuela, as the Communal Councils in the task of building popular power.
Chomsky: Latin America, South America, particularly, is going through big changes. Significant changes are seen in most of the region. It is perhaps the most exciting place in the world, and these changes are due to people's movements. Bolivia is a dramatic case as is perhaps the most democratic country in the world and that is why the United States denounced as anti-democratic, and America is too democratic to be able to tolerate what is happening in Bolivia. To some extent, something similar is happening throughout the region is varied.
With regard to grassroots organizations in Venezuela, what they are doing is to ensure that the structure actually works and to become institutions of the People that work and work to change social and cultural relations, and to provide political change from bases.
Bolivia is a dramatic case. Compared to Bolivia with the United States is extremely interesting. I mentioned that U.S. elections were hailed by the advertising industry as a wonderful achievement to have traded a candidate as sold an item for sale. Do not know much about the politics of the Obama Administration, but we do know is that from the foundation. There
based organizations that influence these policies. These organizations can give their opinion but nobody pays attention. Bolivia is just the opposite. Bolivians are not waiting for orders from Morales, for them then press Morales. This assumes that people wait for instructions from the leader and then pressure. Policies in Bolivia emerge from the mass organizations, and were they want to elect someone from their own ranks.
Interestingly, there was euphoria in Europe over the U.S. election campaign, only in America can be so magic. Under the European standards, this is probably true, there are more racist than the U.S.. But under global standards means nothing.
more surprising is that grassroots organizations in Bolivia have been able to choose a president from its own ranks, the peasantry. There are many other cases like this, but have occurred in places where people are considered sub-human by the West, because "these people are subjects, not agents (exchange).
In Bolivia it was not just the popular organizations had real problems. In the U.S. problems are marginalized, because this is not the way to market candidates. In Bolivia the problems are addressed, the control of its resources, cultural rights, justice, ethnic and other rights. It was not that the people one day, just appeared at the polls. The election day was just one scenario of a popular struggle has been going on for years. Now that's democracy.
That's why the media here described Bolivia as anti-democracy. The reason is that Bolivia is a real democracy, which is intolerable. I think this is the model. Companies have their own ways of doing things, but this is an inspiring model for Venezuela and others.
MV: Do you think the Monroe Doctrine has been destroyed by the Latin American union?
Chomsky: is being challenged. In Santiago de Chile was a UNASUR meeting during which strong states against Morales supported secessionist movements in Bolivia. This was extremely important. In fact, it was so important not to spread in the U.S. media. Morales
's response was that he is very grateful for their support and said it was the first time in 500 years that Latin America are taking their destiny into their own hands. Now, this is too important to be broadcast in the media of this country. For the U.S. it is a challenge, which is why they are so intransigent. There are secret documents from the Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson which explicitly says that the problem with Cuba is that they have managed to challenge U.S. policies that have been challenging the Monroe Doctrine.
Source: http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n133961.html
