Delaware State University hosted the DSU-APRM Pan African Development Conference, “Mobilizing the 6th Region of Africa” on April 10-12 . Co-hosted by the African Peer Review Mechanism, known as “Africa’s self-assessment for good governance”, and the Center for Global Africa at Delaware State University, the Conference concentrated on topics ranging from reshaping Afrikan and Diaspora images, narratives and relationships to development opportunities with APRM member countries and the role of APRM in mobilizing the Sixth Region of Afrika, as the Diaspora was unofficially named in 2003 when the African Union initially launched its Diaspora Initiative.

This first Pan Afrikan Development Conference at Delaware State University essentially announces the Center for Global Africa (CGA) to the public.  This initiative was conceptualized by Delaware State University Professor Ezrah Aharone and was promoted in large part by Professor Aharone, Professor Akwasi Osei and Professor Leandra Casson Marshall.

“While Pan African gatherings are not unusual,” Prof. Aharone writes in his introduction to attendees,

“this conference uniquely coincides with the 400-year mark (1619-2019) of the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the United States.  Along with the importance of understanding our interlocking interests and the global complexities of this period, we at Delaware State University understand the subsequent 21st-century responsibility of Diasporan Africans to now structurally devise and apply our collective intellect and ideals toward institutional collaborations for global and sustainable African progress, as this conference aims to facilitate through our Center for Global Africa (CGA).

“Further unique, the CGA’s establishment aligns with the African Union’s (AU) policy to designate Africans in the Diaspora as the ‘Sixth Region.’  So to contribute to Africa’s ‘Renaissance and Revitalization’ as recently declared by President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, the CGA’s mission is to mobilize Sixth Region resources and expertise through HBCU initiatives that are faculty and student-driven, solution-oriented, development-centered, and revenue-generating in ways that will be mutually beneficial to Africa and the Diaspora.

“To this end, we applaud and recognize the value of APRM which is a specialized agency of the AU, on whose behalf we largely gather today.  The purpose is to exchange ideas that will productively contribute and expand APRM’s unparalleled work to evaluate the proficiencies of governance and socioeconomic conditions of African nations, with the objective to make recommendations for governments to implement as a means to catalyze 21st-century innovations and development of African nations.”

The full Conference consisted of an opening VIP reception on Wednesday, April 10; four panel discussions on Thursday, April 11, followed by an evening reception; and closed sessions on Friday, April 12. We were able to make the drive to Dover, Delaware, the location of Delaware State University, for the Thursday sessions, where most of the public discussion took place.

The Conference was notable for its varied selection of important speakers. Of course, being an Historically Black College/University (HBCU) and the institution at which the Center for Global Africa was founded, Delaware State professors served on the various panels. Prof. Ezrah Aharone, Dean Michael Casson, Prof. Leandra Casson-Marshall, Prof. Akwasi Osei, Dr. Vincent Fondong, Dr. Cherese Winstead, Dr. Kankoe Assiongbon and Dr. Maneesh Pandeya all made important contributions to the Thursday panels. Prof. Eddy Maloka and Prof. Ibrahim Gambari of APRM, Prof. Donna Patterson, Dr. Marshall Stevenson and Dr. Virginie Zoumenou of University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES), Dr. Chieke Ohejirika of Lincoln University and Prof. Jamila White of Morgan State University were amoing the academics from other institutions and organizations who provided key insights and analysis.

South African attorney Tumi Dlamani, Zemenay Lakew of APRM and New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), Liziwe Masiela of APRM, and His Excellency Khayar Ouman Defallah of APRM-Chad were among other important speakers.

Perhaps the best known panelists were former Major League Baseball manager Dusty Baker; Robert “Kool” Bell of Kool & The Gang, who is partnering with Mr. Baker in Kool-Baker Energy to provide sustainable energy in Afrika; Thomas McClary, founder of the Commodores, who spoke about cultural exchanges between the Diaspora and the Mother Continent; and African Union Ambassador to the United States, The Honorable Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao.

As perhaps the most prominent (and for many Afrikan Diasporans, the only) voice to consistently speak out on behalf of the unification of Afrika and her Scattered Children in the Diaspora, Madame Ambassador Quao’s comments on the key topic of mobilizing the Sixth Region of Afrika are included below, pretty much in their entirety.

One of the African Union’s major catch-phrases over the last several years has been “The Africa We Want”. Here, Ambassador Quao describes the AU’s current plan for how we in the Diaspora can help build it.

“Once again we are here to talk about matters of the village. There are issues in our village, and I appreciate the opportunity for us to come together as members of the village to address the issues together.

“With what I know of the issues that are keeping us together, difficulties that we are having as Afrikan Diaspora, Continental Diaspora, and Afrikan Diaspora as Afrikan Americans. I know many of us have tried to go home, to make a difference. And many of us have come back, because the conditions on the ground were not conducive to what we wanted to offer. I used to take doctors on medical missions, and you end up with a surgeon treating infections and sore throats. Because that’s all they could do. The country did not have the facilities they needed to do what they do best.

“Now, there are other reasons why some of us have gone home and come back. And I’m going to hit this nail by the head, because it’s something we must speak to. When we go to Afrika, as Continental Afrikans, who’ve been-to – in my husband’s country of Ghana, we call these people like me “been-to’s”; I’ve been to America, I’ve been to Britain, been-to’s – we’ve got issues. We go back home with an attitude. We think just because we’ve been-to, we know more than the ones at home. That attitude has got to change. And it’s one of the reasons that many people are not making it when the been-to’s go back.

“We also have Afrikan Americans, who go to Afrika thinking ‘I’m going to tell the Afrikans, I know more than the Afrikans.’ That’s where you are wrong, because Afrikans have a lot to teach you too. So there is a need for an attitude adjustment, a realization that we have something to offer. But they too have something to offer us. What is needed is for us to work together, because united, and understanding each other, that’s the only way we can come together in a meaningful way and build the Afrika that We Want.

“At the African Union Mission, that’s one of my mandates. Two main mandates, one to promote Afrika in the Americas, and the second one, to bring the Diaspora home by any means necessary.

“With that understanding, I sat down and asked myself, how do I go about taking this very diverse, interested group of people who don’t like each other, how do I go about bringing them together so we can go home?

“Looking at the issues that we are dealing with on this side of the Atlantic as well as the opposite side, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way we can effectively go back home as Afrikan Diaspora to accomplish two things: 1) yes, to bring the expertise that is needed, but 2) I remember two years ago, president Trump was addressing the Afrikan heads of state and he said ‘I don’t know why you guys are poor. My friends go to Afrika poor, they come back rich.’ Are you with me? So for those of you who think the Afrikan heads of state are calling you to come home because they just want your money, wrong. We are saying, if you don’t show up, and you [don’t] stand up to be counted, next time the contracts go to the Chinese, shut up. How do we give you contracts when we don’t know where you are? How do we know about your business when you don’t stand up? And that is the challenge the Afrikan heads of state are running into. Next … Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, there is a conference going on in Nairobi. Former Prime Minister of Kenya, Raila Odinga, is now over infrastructure. His advisor called; one of his Afro Champion advisors called me and said, ‘Ambassador, we need you to put together a coalition of Afrikan Diaspora who can come in and be together with Afro Champions, be the first to know of the development of projects that are going on in Afrika.’ There is nothing wrong with Diaspora organizations building the next Cape to Cairo Highway. The next Cape to Cairo High Speed Train. You can only get those contracts when you’re on the table. You heard your sister [earlier in the conference] talk about [trying to find a] Pan Afrikan Chamber of Commerce, but [especially when she mentioned developing an Afrikan] single currency. These are all opportunities that are going to happen in Afrika at the continental level. You’ve got to realize, because of the Afrikan Continental Free Trade Area [CFTA], for the first time ever, in the development agenda for Afrika, we are looking at it as Afrika, not as 55 different countries.

“So this is a tremendous entry point, that if you Diaspora, if we don’t organize, we are going to miss out. The heads of state are saying the Diaspora must be in the front, along with the Afro Champions. They are wanting to create a space for us. We got our twenty-second ratification which is what we needed in order for implementation [of CFTA] to begin, two weeks ago. We are talking of a baby who has just been born. I want everybody to be clear about that. We are in a beautiful place to be on the drivers side, [in the] drivers seat of the developmental agenda for Afrika. So please, if you hear anything else from me, this is the time for us to organize, and stand up, and let’s take Afrika where Afrika belongs on the world stage. But in the process, we are also helping ourselves. There is nothing wrong with you investing your money in Afrika, coming back home to America, and play golf like they do. That’s what we want you to do, so don’t look at it any other way. It’s a win-win situation.

“So with that in mind, in Washington, we set out to then say, Where do we begin? Fortunately for us, first it was the President of Zambia who stood up and he gave us 135 hectares of land, which is about 300 acres. And when the President of Zimbabwe heard about the 135 hectares, he said … Zambia has a lot of money. You see, Victoria Falls – for those of you who don’t know Victoria Falls, Google it, it’s a beautiful place – is one of the best tourist destinations in Afrika. They say Victoria Falls is like a woman: when you look at her from the Zambian side you’re looking at her back. But when you’re looking at her from Zimbabwe the choice is yours which view you want. So he proceeded to give us 2,000 hectares. So we have been offered 2,000 hectares of land, on the Zimbabwe side of Victoria Falls, along the Zambezi River. Prime, prime, prime location. There, ladies and gentlemen, we, the Afrikan Diaspora, in collaboration with our Brothers and Sisters on the Continent, we are going to build our first, our very own, Wakanda.

“We are calling it, Afrikan Diaspora Centers of Excellence. Why are we building Wakanda? Money alone is not enough to bring change, sustainable change that Afrika needs. Capacity building is where it’s at. Most of you may not realize that Afrika today needs 1.2 million doctors. If all the Diaspora, Continental Afrikan and Afrikan American doctors, were to go home to Afrika today, they’re only going to meet about 30 percent of the need. Many heads of states thought building new hospitals, renovating old ones, was the way to address the issues of health care. Guess what? Most of those wards, half of them, are empty because there are no doctors.

“I’d like to talk about my husband’s country, my own country, Ghana. There are more Ghanaian doctors in New York City alone than in the entire country of Ghana. So when Diaspora starts complaining … I say ‘[that’s] because you are here.’ So our reality is , capacity is what Afrika needs. And where is that capacity? It’s in the Diaspora, thanks to the brain drain. At every level, every sector, the capacity Afrika needs is in the Diaspora, not on the Continent. Seven billion dollars is being spent every year paying salaries to expatriates going to Afrika to provide services. And when I ask why is it that you never get Diaspora to fill some of those jobs, they say ‘Where are they?’ … At every level, we are losing out because we are scattered.
“So, in Wakanda, there will be a thousand-bed teaching hospital to train all the capacity Afrika needs. There will be one Wakanda village in each region, which will be a developmental hub for the region. So for every hospital built, there will be supporting hospitals. Also, we will have a university, a technical college, to train, again, all the capacity Afrika needs. Agricultural farms and an agricultural college, hotels for hospitality. A country with some of the best tourist destinations, [but] we’re only realizing about 4 percent of the tourism dollars in the world. Agriculture – for a continent with over 65 percent of the arable land in the world, we are importing food. I am embarrassed to say that. Afrika should be, and will be, the breadbasket of the world.

“In addition, in our Wakanda, we are also going to have pharmaceutical manufacturing. Most of you are also not aware that in most of the Sub Saharan Afrikan countries, [of the] drugs going into those countries, close to 50 percent have zero bio-viability. That means they are not medication. They are chalk, in some cases poisonous substances. Millions of people are dying every year, thinking they are taking blood pressure medicines, diabetic medicines … when they are taking poison. Those are murderers, outside murderers, coming in. Millions of them, every day. And nobody is held accountable. We have got to stop that. …

“And of course, there will be a power plant, infrastructure, housing, supportive development. It’s going to be a very modern city, with roads that are ready for self-driving cars, monorails for easy transport around the village. It’s going to be how Afrika should be. We will build the Afrika that We Want.

“For everything that’s happening in Wakanda, there’s going to be downstream development. You can picture this: a team … whose job is to do nothing but to make sure, 15 to 20 years from now, [lack of] access to health care is a thing of the past. Educators who are saying, 15 to 20 years from now, [lack of] access to health care is a thing of the past, [lack of] access to power is a thing of the past, [lack of] access to water is a thing of the past. We’ll have teams from the Diaspora working on the various sectors. Can we not do that guys? Absolutely, yes we can. And all we’ve got to do is organize, because the brains we need are endless in the Diaspora. Then the question becomes, ‘Ambassador, how are we going to find them?’ That’s easy! We’ve got 50 million Black people in this country. 41 million Afrikan Americans and 9 million Continental Afrikans. If I just get a million of those to put aside a thousand dollars a year, that’s a billion dollars. Can we not do that? If I get 5 million, now we’re down to only 200 dollars a year, and we’ve got a billion dollars. And you take that money, you leverage it, and you keep it in there, just leveraging it, not doing another thing, we can get a billion dollars every year, out of that money, to build our Wakanda. Can we not do that? Can I get an ‘Amen’?

“We can do this! We want the NGOs out of our countries. We want no more aid. Aid is killing us. We don’t need aid, because we are very capable of taking care of ourselves. Especially you, us, Diaspora. To whom much is given, much is expected. We can do this. We live in this wonderful, great country. In my last conversation with [previous African Union Commission] Chairman [Nkosazana Dlamini-] Zuma, she said to me, ‘My sister, if sustainable development is to come to Afrika, it’s going to be brought by the Diaspora. But not just any Diaspora; the Diaspora in America. The Diaspora in America. Think about it. There’s something unique about being a Diaspora in this country. We already live as Americans. Not as Californians, not as Floridians, but Americans. Subconsciously, we are already integrated, so moving into Afrika is a piece of cake! So the Afrikan leaders, and my [current African Union Commission] Chairman, Moussa Faki Mahamat, they are very clear, that in order for Afrika to move forward, the Children of Afrika in the Diaspora must be front, middle and end of it all. So I look forward to our conversations, [and] I hope that we can all be in the right spirit and agree that we must speak as one Continent, one Afrika, one voice. Thank you.”

The Ambassador has also released an extremely informative video in which she quite emphatically breaks down the destructive legacy of the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference, in which the European powers at the time carved up the Afrikan Continent into colonial territories that led to the current map of Afrika we see today, as well as the colonial influence that persists in Afrika in the form of colonial languages, colonial spirituality, colonial names, colonial currency and the pillage of the Continent for the benefit of the colonial powers, and urges us all to work together as Afrikan People to break the colonial grip that still hampers the Mother Continent to this day.

The end of March brought news of the senseless, tragic death of Los Angeles Hip Hop artist Ermias Davidson Asghedom, more famously known as “Nipsey Hu$$le”. Gunned down in front of the Marathon apparel and music store he had founded and built, his murder has shocked friends, fans and followers alike. Two other victims in the shooting survived. The many celebrities, from Dr. Dre to Jay-Z to Charlamagne Tha God, have expressed their shock at this murder and their condolences to his family. Some of the initial news reports can be found at The Blast (https://theblast.com/nipsey-hussle-dead/) and The Grio (https://thegrio.com/2019/03/31/breaking-rapper-nipsey-hussle-shot-and-killed-outside-of-los-angeles-store/).

More details will be revealed over the next few days and weeks, but speculation on the reasons for this attack has ranged from some escalation of gang violence (he was once affiliated with the Crips in Los Angeles and had spoken about his early life in the local drug trade) to a video documentary he had recently announced centering on Dr. Sebi, an alternative health practitioner who was himself rumored to have ben targeted and killed because his opposition to drugs and his success in treating people with natural remedies were seen as a threat to the pharmaceutical drug industry (See the article in The Root, https://www.theroot.com/5-mysteries-surrounding-the-life-and-death-of-dr-sebi-1790856373) to the larger issue of his plans to revitalize the Crenshaw area of Los Angeles through real-estate and other economic strategies, fueled by his musical successes (See an article in Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2019/02/20/nipsey-hussle-opportunity-zone-real-estate-mogul-blueprint/#62420ed86364).

Nipsey Hu$$le’s story, which includes guest appearances on Larry Wilmore’s Nightly Show in 2016, The Breakfast Club and other programs, as well as his recent Grammy nomination for best rap album and his performance at the 2019 Super Bowl, nearly parallels those of others who have rocketed to fame for their artistic talents but were later cut down either because of their fame of because of their commitment to lifting up their communities. On the national front, the names Tupac “2Pac” Shakur and Christopher “Biggie Smalls/Notorious B.I.G” Wallace are the best known, but these tragedies play out far too often in every city, and their impact on local communities is just as traumatic. In Baltimore, Maryland, Tyriece Trayvon “Lor Scoota” Watson (left), 23, was gunned down on June 25, 2016 on his way from a community peace rally (“Killing of Baltimore rapper Lor Scoota — ‘one of the voices of the city’ — stuns community”, The Baltimore Sun, https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-rapper-shooting-20160626-story.html). Dominic “Nick Breed” Grant (right), 24, “who advocated for nonviolence and whose lyrics often reflected the city’s trauma”, was killed October 21, 2018 (“Rapper whose lyrics reflected Baltimore’s pain fatally shot”, https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/10/23/rapper-whose-lyrics-reflected-baltimores-pain-fatally-shot/). Washington, DC-area rapper Theodore Dashawn “30 Glizzy” Pigford (left), 26, “a nice young man with a promising career,” according to attorney John McKenna, who had represented him in court, was shot and killed September 6, 2017 in South Baltimore (https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-30-glizzy-killed-20170907-story.html).

These killings seem to be occurring at a time when these artists are just starting to transcend the more stereotypical aspects of their musical careers – the lyrics about sex, drugs, gangs and gun violence – and finding their “comfort zones” in the areas of entrepreneurship, community uplift and personal growth. This begs the questions: How many of these murders truly are gnag-related, and how many of them may be motivated by some effort, by some person or persons still unknown, to prevent them from using their exploding “street cred” to help lift their communities out of the cycles of poverty, violence and despair that often seem inescapable?

We continue to await answers, or even clues of answers, to these questions. In the meantime, we pray for some semblance of peace for their families, friends and fans, and for us as a community to find or develop ways in which those who are left and are still doing positive work in their communities can be protected from a similar fate.

The communities of activists and artists have work to do! Let’s embrace those positive forces who reach out to the people and help move the community forward.

Definition of smear campaign: a plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations. (https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/)

A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual’s or group’s reputation, credibility, and character. Like negative campaigning, most often smear campaigns target government officials, politicians, political candidates, and other public figures. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign)

Definition of anti-Semitism: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.
– Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitism

Working Definition of Antisemitism. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
– International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

Definition of trope: Rhetoric.. any literary or rhetorical device, as metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony, that consists in the use of words in other than their literal sense. (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/trope)

In 2012, Ilhan Omar was not yet the first Somali-American member of Congress. She was a Muslim woman who had fled persecution before and was convinced she knew it when she saw it.

She witnessed what she saw as persecution yet again with a 2012 Israeli military assault in the Gaza Strip, a place where the Palestinian population has lived in a state of desperation since the Israeli isolation and blockade of the Hamas-led Palestinian territory, a place where an Israeli assault on a Gaza “Freedom Flotilla” on May 31, 2010 had killed nine peace activists and where the Israeli military had fired white phosphorous chemical weapons in the infamous Operation Cast Lead from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009.

The Israeli government had pointed to the regular firing of rockets from Gaza as justification for these actions, but the disproportionate force used led to accusations from much of the international community of imposing collective punishment on the Palestinians of Gaza, and the treatment of Palestinians in the more compliant West Bank was not much better, with the increasing encroachment of Israeli settlements and the building of roads through the West Bank that Palestinians were not allowed to use, policies which had caused former US president Jimmy Carter to write about “apartheid” in the Palestinian territories.

Ms. Omar was inspired by what she had seen of the 2012 assault to write the following Tweet:

“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

Even though she was not a member of Congress at the time, that Tweet was used seven years later to launch a political attack on her less than a month after being sworn in as part of a new wave of women, one of Congress’ first Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan) and the first-ever Somali-American in the United States House of Representatives.

When journalist Glen Greenwald Tweeted in January about threats from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to take “action” against her for that earlier Tweet, she responded with a comment that reflects the suspicions of many that lobbyists, including the powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC (the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee), have influenced political leaders with their campaign contributions:

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby.”

Afrikan-Americans recognize this saying as the title and main vocal hook from the 1997 hip-hop smash from Puff Daddy (Sean “P Diddy” Combs) and the Family, as well as the 2002 film starring Ice Cube and Mike Epps. To us, the line highlights the undue influence money has over all of us, often to our own detriment. However, others see that line as something entirely different: an “anti-Semitic trope”.

“Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”
– Statement from the House Democratic leadership, Sunday, February 10, 2019

Rep. Omar’s initial efforts to defend herself from what many saw as a weak right-wing excuse to attack her integrity seemed to ignite even more controversy.

“Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that!”
– Tweet from Congress Member Ilhan Omar, in response to criticism from NY Reps. Eliot Engel (D) and Nita Lowey (D)

Ms. Omar continued to defend her integrity, even as she issued apologies for the “unknowing” use of what she had come to acknowledge as “hurtful” words to her critics.

“I am told everyday that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel. I find that to be problematic and I am not alone. I just happen to be willing to speak up on it and open myself to attacks.”
– Tweet from Congress Member Ilhan Omar

“Israel is an ally of the United States and I think as much as you would look to your neighbor, to your friends, to live out the same values as you are, we want to make sure that our allies are living out the same values that we push for here.”
– Congress Member Ilhan Omar, in a CNN interview

While it may be understandable that Jewish politicians and members of the Jewish community may have taken her words as hurtful (though many progressive Jews in the United States who are themselves critical of official Israeli actions seem to know better), when one looks at the Tweets above, exactly what about them is anti-Semitic? How is it that mere criticism of Israeli policy must always place one in the same company as the Nazi Party, even if a statement criticizes the government and not the people? If “all about the Benjamins” is considered anti-Semitic, then is not the common expression “money talks, bullshit walks” as well? Must we now cease listening to the O’Jays’ “For The Love Of Money” for fear of being labeled a hater of Jews? Is all criticism of politicians’ susceptibility to lobbyists now off-limits? Is it now improper to point out that political candidates, whose campaigns are initially judged by how much money they raise and whose policies once in office are often influenced by the moneyed interests whose contributions got them their jobs, are influenced more by these major donors than by the people who elected them? Is campaign finance reform, an often-touted strategy to “take the money out of politics”, now a forbidden subject? Who exactly is being anti-Semitic here, those of us who use the above expressions and point out the hypocrisy of materialistic would-be lawmakers, or those who see in all of them some unintended, loosely-associated and often-manufactured reference to people of the Jewish faith and Israeli citizenship?

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism. It has also been characterized as a political ideology which serves as an organizing principle and unites disparate groups which are opposed to liberalism.

Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Jews to organized pogroms by mobs, state police, or even military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Although the term did not come into common usage until the 19th century, it is now also applied to historic anti-Jewish incidents. Notable instances of persecution include the Rhineland massacres preceding the First Crusade in 1096, the Edict of Expulsion from England in 1290, the massacres of Spanish Jews in 1391, the persecutions of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the Cossack massacres in Ukraine from 1648 to 1657, various anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire between 1821 and 1906, the 1894–1906 Dreyfus affair in France, the Holocaust in German-occupied Europe during World War II, Soviet anti-Jewish policies, and Arab and Muslim involvement in the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.

The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people, e.g., including Arabs and Assyrians. The compound word antisemite was popularized in Germany in 1879 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (“Jew-hatred”), and this has been its common use since then.
-from a Wikipedia article on Antisemitism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism)

Ms. Omar did not question the existence of the Holocaust or its horrific toll on Jews worldwide. She did not make statements against the Jewish community or exhort people to commit actions against Jews as Neo-Nazis and followers of the Ku Klux Klan often do. Her comments were critical of Israeli government actions, specifically those that have led and still lead to Palestinian suffering or are used to influence US politicians to stifle criticism. And she did not play subtle games using double-speak. She was, at worst, unsubtle and politically incorrect, a level of brutal frankness many of her right-wing detractors would admire if coming from one of their own.

But she was attacked for it, and some have issued threats against her safety for it. Thus is the honesty and, perhaps, naivete of a 37-year-old (young by political standards) freshman Member of Congress punished.

The criticism from right-wing media was summarized, in part, by a March 3, 2019 article by Joel Pollak for Breitbart, “Ilhan Omar Doubled Down on Antisemitic Slur: No ‘Allegiance’ to Israel” (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/03/ilhan-omar-doubles-down-on-antisemitic-slur-no-allegiance-to-israel/):

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) doubled down Sunday on her comment last week accusing pro-Israel Americans of “allegiance to a foreign country,” repeating that view on Twitter and defying calls from fellow Democrats to apologize. …

The Political Machine Retaliates

The response from the Democratic Party establishment was swift and, frankly, not surprising. Kassy Dillon wrote an article on February 11, 2019 in the Daily wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/43320/democrats-pelosi-condemn-ilhan-omar-keep-her-key-kassy-dillon), “Democrats, Pelosi Condemn Ilhan Omar, But Keep Her On Key Committee”, and an article in Business Insider, “Democrats condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar over ‘anti-Semitic’ tweets about AIPAC and Israel” (https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-criticize-ilhan-omar-aipac-israel-tweets-2019-2Congressional) describes the reaction as follows:

A number of congressional Democrats on Monday joined a growing chorus of criticism against freshman Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota over her tweets about Israel that led to widespread allegations of anti-Semitism.

Omar ignited a social-media firestorm on Sunday after she suggested that support for Israel among Republican members of Congress is motivated by money.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” Omar tweeted in response to a tweet from the journalist Glenn Greenwald about House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy threatening to take “action” against the freshman congresswoman over her criticism of Israel.

Subsequently, when asked to clarify what she meant, Omar in a separate tweet seemed to suggest a pro-Israel lobbying group — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — is paying US politicians to support Israel. …

Omar is a proponent of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), a nonviolent, global campaign that seeks to isolate Israel economically and politically regarding the country’s treatment of Palestinians and the occupation of the West Bank.

The Minnesota congresswoman has been unabashedly critical of the Israeli government and said in a recent CNN interview it’s “exciting” to see a broader debate happening on the US government’s relationship with Israel.

“It’s not surprising. I think it is actually exciting because we are finally able to have conversations that we weren’t really willing to,” Omar said. “It is really important for us to get a different lens about what peace in that region could look like and the kind of difficult conversations we need to have about allies.”

“Israel is an ally of the United States and I think as much as you would look to your neighbor, to your friends, to live out the same values as you are, we want to make sure that our allies are living out the same values that we push for here,” she added. …

Amid the ongoing criticism, Omar has maintained that she supports the Jewish community and her comments are directed at the Israeli government in the context of its policy toward Palestine. She’s also expressed regret over how she’s framed her criticism of Israel in the past.

Meanwhile, Ms. Omar has her defenders in Congress and the Senate. US Senators and 2020 presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), Kamala Harris (D-California) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) have expressed their concerns about the fervor with which Ms. Omar has been targeted. One article detailing this was written by Filipa Ioannou (“Kamala Harris defends Ilhan Omar after backlash to Israel comments”, Wednesday, March 6, 2019; https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/ilhan-omar-kamala-harris-nancy-pelosi-resolution-13668448.php):

In a Wednesday statement, Harris expressed concern over the criticism of Omar, who has reportedly received death threats.

“We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America. But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk,” said Harris in a statement released Wednesday afternoon.

“We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy. You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country,” the statement continued. “I also believe there is a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism.” …

Other 2020 contenders, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also expressed misgivings about the criticism of Omar, warning against equating “anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel.”

“What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate,” he continued, in a statement to The Hill. “That’s wrong.”

David Crary wrote an analysis for sfgate.com (https://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/article/Omar-furor-reflects-intensifying-national-debate-13675648.php) on Saturday, March 9, 2019 “Omar furor reflects intensifying national debate over Israel”:

One of the first two Muslim women in Congress, Omar supports a contentious part of the overall dispute — the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, or BDS, which promotes various forms of boycotts against Israel.

Some celebrities — including actress Natalie Portman and singer Lana Del Ray — have withdrawn from appearances in Israel in recent months out of concern over Israeli policies. Several scholarly associations, including the American Studies Association and the Association for Asian American Studies, have supported an academic boycott, even as other associations and academic leaders have opposed that campaign. …

In response to the BDS movement, 26 states have passed laws seeking to deter businesses and individuals from participating in it. For example, a Texas law requires contractors who work for or do business with the state to certify that they do not boycott Israel or Israeli-occupied territories.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed lawsuits challenging the Texas law and similar laws in three other states, saying they violate the right to free speech. A separate lawsuit was filed in Texas by a speech language pathologist, Bahia Amawi, who said she lost her contract with the state because she would not sign the certification. …

One of the groups supporting BDS is Jewish Voice for Peace, which was founded in 1996 and endorsed the boycott campaign in 2015. Rabbi Alissa Wise, the group’s deputy director, says the boycott campaign has been effective, even in the face of state laws seeking to curtail it.

“These laws are meant to silence and repress,” she said. “But they can’t change people’s hearts and minds.”

The Anti-Defamation League, whose mission is to combat anti-Semitism, denounces Jewish Voice for Peace as “a radical anti-Israel activist group” that advocates a total boycott.

Linda Sarsour, one of the key organizers of the Women’s March in 2017 and 2019, blasted Pelosi and the House leadership for their initial condemnation of Ms. Omar (https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ilhan-Omar-Linda-Sarsour-anti-semitism-Pelosi-13665817.php), “Women’s March leader blasts ‘white feminist’ Nancy Pelosi for Ilhan Omar condemnation”, by Eric Ting, Tuesday, March 5, 2019.

Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour ripped into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after House Democrats drafted a resolution condemning anti-Semitism in response to Rep. Ilhan Omar accusing pro-Israel lawmakers of pushing for “allegiance to a foreign country.” …

“Nancy is a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men,” she wrote in a Facebook post. “God forbid the men are upset – no worries, Nancy to the rescue to stroke their egos.” …

“Democrats are playing in to the hands of the right,” she wrote. “Dividing our base and reinforcing their narrative and giving them an easier path towards 2020… You want a resolution? Condemn all forms of bigotry. All forms of bigotry are unacceptable. We won’t let them pin us up against each other. We stand with Representative Ilhan Omar. Our top priority is the safety of our sister and her family.”

The House of Representatives Resolution on Anti-Semitism and Bigotry

The House of Representatives’ official word on the matter came down on March 7, 2019 when it passed a broad resolution by a vote of 407-23. “Sparked by Ilhan Omar’s ‘Valid Criticism’ of Israel, House Overwhelmingly Passes Broad ‘Anti-Hate’ Resolution”, on the Web site of Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/07/sparked-ilhan-omars-valid-criticism-israel-house-overwhelmingly-passes-broad-anti), reported on the resolution on March 7, along with the text (which can be read in its entirety on the Common Dreams article link):

The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a non-binding Democratic resolution condemning anti-Semitism, white supremacy, Islamophobia, and other forms of bigotry.

The final tally was 407-23, with 234 Democrats and 173 Republicans voting yes. All of the no votes were Republicans, and one GOP member—Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)—voted present.

Though the resolution does not mention Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) by name, progressive critics perceived the measure as an implicit rebuke of the congresswoman over her criticism of the Israeli lobby and government.

“While valid criticism of Netanyahu, AIPAC, and Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians are being falsely attacked as anti-Semitism, threats by white supremacists are continuing.”
—Rabbi Alissa Wise, Jewish Voice for Peace.

While advocacy groups that have mobilized in defense of Omar applauded House Democrats’ far-reaching condemnation of hatred and bigotry, they were quick to note that the resolution is far from perfect.

“As the anti-Omar resolution was transformed into a broader ‘anti-hate’ resolution—with plenty of rhetoric that progressives support—it unfortunately found no room to say: ‘Criticism of Israel cannot be equated with anti-Semitism.’ That was the message of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in their defenses of Omar,” said Jeff Cohen, co-founder of RootsAction.org. “Let’s hope the resistance to the original resolution marks a turning point in Congress’ blind support for Israel’s subjugation of Palestinians.”

Linda Sarsour—executive director of MPower Change, a broad coalition of Arab and Muslim groups that helped organize support for Omar—said that it is now time to “get back to work against the rise of white nationalism that threatens all of our communities and build a government and policies that respects every resident of this nation.”

“We are a movement that unequivocally rejects anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, and all forms of bigotry, and expect the same from Democratic leadership,” Sarsour said. “It’s a new day where we no longer will accept attacks on our free speech and stifling of necessary debate on Israeli government policies against Palestinians.”

Rabbi Alissa Wise, deputy director of Jewish Voice for Peace, echoed Sarsour’s warning about white nationalism, saying, “While valid criticism of Netanyahu, AIPAC, and Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians are being falsely attacked as anti-Semitism, threats by white supremacists are continuing.”

“And we all know who white supremacists have their sights set on: Black people, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, and more,” Wise concluded. “We’re happy to see a resolution that condemns real bigotry, rather than going after Rep. Ilhan Omar and her vision of a world free of racism and oppression.” …

On Twitter, the youth-led Jewish advocacy group IfNotNow credited grassroots pressure with ensuring that “the new House Resolution [is] more inclusive: it now condemns anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and racism, while correctly blaming the rise of such bigotry on white nationalism and white supremacy.”

“It is not a perfect resolution,” IfNotNow added. “Its timing still clearly associates it as a rebuke to Ilhan Omar. It, unfortunately, enshrines U.S. support for the Israeli government, which maintains the fifty-one-year military occupation of the West Bank and siege of the Gaza Strip.”

But this broad resolution against anti-Semitism and bigotry was not enough for the right-wing. Several Republican lawmakers refused to vote for the resolution because they felt it was “watered down” from what they had wanted – an unequivocal condemnation of Ms. Omar, and perhaps even some punishment to be imposed upon her, taking her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for starters, and for some, expulsion from the House of Representatives altogether. Here is a sampling of some of the responses, taken from an article by Emily Cochrane, Catie Edmondson and Sheryl Gay Stolberg for msn.com on Sunday, March 10 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-some-republicans-voted-against-the-antibigotry-resolution/ar-BBUAiAA?ocid=spartanntp):

Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama

Mr. Brooks said he voted against the resolution because its “failure to specifically state opposition to discrimination against Caucasian-Americans and Christians, while reflective of Socialist Democrat priorities and values is, by omission, fatal to the bill.”

After Mr. Brooks said in 2016 that Muslims wanted to “kill every gay person in America,” the Alabama chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded an apology.

Representative Ted Budd of North Carolina

Mr. Budd, reacting on Twitter, said that he voted against the resolution because it failed to name Ms. Omar or list her comments.

Representative Michael C. Burgess of Texas

The legislation, Mr. Burgess said in a statement, “does not adequately refute the anti-Semitism that has been displayed in the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming

Perhaps the most striking “no” vote came from Ms. Cheney, the No. 3 Republican, because of her role as chairwoman of the House Republican Conference.

“Today’s resolution vote was a sham put forward by Democrats to avoid condemning one of their own and denouncing vile anti-Semitism,” Ms. Cheney said in a statement after the vote.

Representative Chris Collins of New York

Mr. Collins was re-elected in November even after he was indicted on a charge of insider trading. He has kept a low profile, but after his “no” vote, he took to Twitter.

“After reading the final resolution I did not feel it was strong enough in support of Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, and that is why I voted no,” Mr. Collins said.

Representative Rick Crawford of Arkansas

“If Democrat Leaders wanted to specifically address anti-Semitism and a member of their conference who has repeatedly made anti-Semitic comments,” Mr. Crawford said on Twitter, “this resolution failed in nearly every way possible.”

Representative Jeff Duncan of South Carolina

Mr. Duncan argued that a true condemnation would have made reference to Ms. Omar, and the comments that prompted the resolution.

Mr. Duncan stirred protests in 2017 when he posted on Facebook an image of a white man labeled “Europe” with a noose around his neck watering a small tree labeled “Islam,” with one end of the noose tied around it. “Chew on this picture,” he wrote.

Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas

In a fiery speech on the House floor on Thursday, Mr. Gohmert complained that the resolution was “watered down.”

Mr. Gohmert dealt with his own accusations of anti-Semitism last year after he falsely accused [George] Soros of collaborating with the Nazis during World War II, a popular myth on the far right. “George Soros is supposed to be Jewish, but you wouldn’t know it from the damage he’s inflicted on Israel, and the fact that he turned on fellow Jews and helped take the property that they owned,” he said on Fox Business Network.

Patrick Gaspard, the president of Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations, sent a letter to Mr. Gohmert in December demanding an apology for the “disturbing and false anti-Semitic slur.”

Mr. Soros was a child in Nazi-occupied Hungary.

Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona

“Without naming the offender, the chastisement is an empty gesture,” Mr. Gosar said on Twitter. “It’s time for Democrats to take real action against these anti-Jewish remarks.”

Mr. Gosar raised eyebrows after the deadly white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 when he said “an Obama sympathizer” — funded by Mr. Soros — “started the rally,” then repeated the claim that Mr. Soros “turned in his own people to the Nazis.”

Representative Peter T. King of New York

Mr. King complained on Twitter that the resolution was weakened because of political correctness, and said it was a “sad day for Congress.”

“Victory for hate speech!” he added.

Representative Doug LaMalfa of California

In a statement to The New York Times, Mr. LaMalfa said that the resolution — which he called a “last-minute, politically driven catchall smorgasbord” — was an “abomination to the message that should be sent on the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel rhetoric.”

Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama

“House Democrats had the opportunity to make a strong statement against this vile bigotry by condemning hateful statements,” Mr. Rogers in a statement. “Instead, they caved to their radical socialist base and took no meaningful action.”

Representative Mark Walker of North Carolina

In a statement, Mr. Walker said that it was a “spineless resolution” that “provided cover to a politician spreading hatred and anti-Semitism.”

The Attack Continues on Several Fronts

“They got to him, he is compromised.”
-Tweet from Congress Member Ilhan Omar about former Senator and Attorney General Lindsey Graham, regarding Graham’s flip-flop from calling then-presidential candidate Donald Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” to becoming one of the most ardent supporters of the Republican presidential nominee and later president

As if accusations of anti-Semitism weren’t enough, some have even attacked Ms. Omar as being homophobic. As supporters of Ms. Omar have noted about the rather thin rationale that she is an anti-Semite for daring to criticize Israeli policy and actions, her detractors have also taken to interpreting her use of the word “compromised” as an indication that she was implying that Lindsey Graham was a secret homosexual, thus sparking accusations of homophobia. William Cummings wrote in USA Today about this curious intellectual leap in a January 17, 2019 article “Rep. Omar starts furor with tweets on ‘compromised’ Sen. Graham, Israel ‘evil doings'” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/17/ilhan-omar-tweet-controversy/2603030002/):

On Tuesday, the Minnesota Democrat and first Somali-American elected to Congress, posted a tweet about Graham, saying, “They got to him, he is compromised.” The comment was made with a retweet of a post featuring a 2015 CNN interview in which the South Carolina Republican called then-presidential candidate Donald Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.”

When asked about the tweet on CNN Thursday, Omar said her point was “we have seen many times where Sen. Lindsey Graham has told us how dangerous this president could be if he was given the opportunity to be in the White House, and all of the sudden he’s made … a turnaround.”

“So, I am pretty sure that there is something happening with him, whether it is something that has to do with his funding when it comes to running for office, whether it has something to do with the pull that they might have in his district, or whether it has to do with some sort of leadership within the Senate,” she continued without explaining who she meant by “they.”

“He is somehow compromised to no longer stand up for the truth,” she concluded from his change of opinion. …

Although she made no reference to Graham’s sexuality, many conservatives denounced her for homophobia, saying her tweet about Graham being compromised was a reference to long-running and unsubstantiated rumors that he is gay.

“This is ignorant, homophobic and unacceptable,” CNN’s S.E. Cupp tweeted with a link to the CNN interview in which Omar made no reference to Graham’s sexuality. “Democrats, this is becoming a very bad look.”

“Here we have Ilhan Omar, a sitting Congresswoman, floating around a conspiracy theory with absolutely zero evidence that Lindsey Graham is secretly gay and the GOP is holding him hostage. Unbelievable,” tweeted social media strategist Caleb Hull.

Meanwhile, Ms. Omar has continued to defend her political stance while acknowledging that her statements were often clumsily made without realizing how they would be interpreted. “There’s a difference between criticizing a military action by a government that has exercised really oppressive policies and being offensive or attacking a particular people of faith,” she said in a January 2019 interview with Christine Amanpour while calling her choice of words in the “hypnotized” tweet “unfortunate”.

“I say the same things if not worse when it comes to the Saudi government. I’ve called for boycotts of Hajj, and boycotts of Saudi Arabia, because to me it is important when you see oppression taking place – when you see regression – when you see our values being attacked as humans, you must stand up, and it doesn’t matter who the inhabiters of that particular region might be.”

While public figures must be held to standards of honesty and compassion for all people and must be corrected when they misspeak or behave in ways that offend members of the diverse citizenry of their country and the world, the rest of us need to recognize the difference between indelicate remarks, uninformed comments, unenlightened opinions and vindictive and hateful proclamations designed to awaken the impulses that reside in the xenophobic recesses of the soul. We’ve seen enough examples of true evil in political leaders who have sought to promulgate policies that exclude others, dispossess others of their homes, encircle others, imprison others, exploit others, oppress others and exterminate others. Enough has been said about the “othering” of those who are not the same as us for us to be able to see real hatred when it rears its ugly head. It’s time for us all to think more and lash out less, time for us all to stop looking for convenient, vulnerable scapegoats and to start standing up to real injustice and evil when we see it.  Perhaps then we will cease with the wanton attacks against a young, idealistic and, yes, imperfect lawmaker such as Representative Ilhan Omar and start resisting the policies and actions that truly exacerbate the worsening climate of xenophobia in America and around the world.

EDITOR’s NOTE: This comes from JUSTICE INITIATIVE, an organization founded by Heather Gray that often shares commentary on truth and justice issues.  They can be reached at hmcgray@earthlink.net.

The use of the Term “America’ and Where it Originated

The term ‘America’ is used beyond its reference to the United States.

When addressing the politics surrounding the US and Venezuela, invariably the importance of Simon Bolivar comes to the fore. The remarkable leader Hugo Chavez referred to Venezuela essentially as the ongoing Bolivarian Revolution! Without doubt, the significant role of Simon Bolivar continues to resonate in Venezuela and South America overall.

Then, when researching the works and philosophy of Simon Bolivar, I came across the narrative by him that refers to “America” and its needs.

Now, I know that most in the United States refer to the United States singularly as “America” yet we are mistaken to do so. Venezuelans and many others in South America will refer to their countries as “America” as well.

Here is an example of the “American” conceptual framework vis a vis Venezuela from a paper by John Lynch in 1983, from the University of London, entitled “Simon Bolivar and the Age of Revolution. ” In this segment below, with a quote from Bolivar, ‘America’ is being referred to in the context of ‘Venezuela’ under Spanish rule:

Bolivar was not a mere creature of his age, not a slave to French or North American examples. His own revolution was unique, and in developing his ideas and his policies he followed not the models of the western world but the needs of his own America….

But there were problems of identity. Americans by birth, they were neither Indian nor European, but in an ambiguous position between usurped and usurpers. And under Spanish rule their political role was purely passive: ‘America was denied not only its freedom but even an active and effective tyranny’. Most despotic rulers, he argued, at least had an organised system of oppression in which subordinate agents participated at various levels of administration. But under Spanish absolutism Americans were not allowed to exercise any functions of government or even of internal administration. Thus, he concluded, they were not only deprived of their rights but kept in a state of political infancy.
____
John Lynch (11 January 1927 – 4 April 2018) was Professor of Latin American History at the University of London. He spent most of his academic career at University College, and then from 1974 to 1987 as Director of the Institute of Latin American Studies. The main focus of his work was Spanish America in the period 1750-1850. (Wikipedia)

Then I realized that I had never researched where the name “America” came from in the first place. As noted below, ‘America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, the Italian explorer’ and “America,” is a Latinized version of “Amerigo.”

What is the Origin of the Name ‘Venezuela’?

The name ‘Venezuela’, I discovered, came from the second Spanish expedition to the area in 1499, following Christopher Columbus ‘s expedition in 1492. ‘Venezuela’ means “little Venice.” Here’s a short explanation:

The second Spanish expedition, led by Alonso de Ojeda, sailing along the length of the northern coast of South America in 1499, gave the name Venezuela (“little Venice” in Spanish) to the Gulf of Venezuela-because of its perceived similarity to the Italian city.
(Wikipedia)
____
Below, please see the interesting short narrative of the origin of the term “America”.
Heather Gray
February 17, 2019
Justice Initiative

The Loc.Gov
Wise Guide

B. [Portrait of Amerigo Vespucci], Reproduction of anonymous painting. [No date found on item.] Prints and Photographs Division. Reproduction No.: LC-USZ62-63115

America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, the Italian explorer who set forth the then revolutionary concept that the lands that Christopher Columbus sailed to in 1492 were part of a separate continent. A map created in 1507 by Martin Waldseemüller was the first to depict this new continent with the name “America,” a Latinized version of “Amerigo.”

The map grew out of an ambitious project in St. Dié, France, in the early years of the 16th century, to update geographic knowledge flowing from the new discoveries of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Martin Waldseemüller’s large world map was the most exciting product of that research effort. He included on the map data gathered by Vespucci during his voyages of 1501-1502 to the New World. Waldseemüller named the new lands “America” on his 1507 map in the recognition of Vespucci’s understanding that a new continent had been uncovered following Columbus’ and subsequent voyages in the late 15th century. An edition of 1,000 copies of the large wood-cut print was reportedly printed and sold, but no other copy is known to have survived. It was the first map, printed or manuscript, to depict clearly a separate Western Hemisphere, with the Pacific as a separate ocean. The map reflected a huge leap forward in knowledge, recognizing the newly found American landmass and forever changing mankind’s understanding and perception of the world itself.

The Library of Congress recently completed the purchase of the only known extant copy of this map for $10 million, thanks to the generosity of the U.S. Congress, Discovery Channel, Gerald Lenfest, David Koch and several other donors.

A. Waldseemüller, [Map of the World Naming “America,” 1507.
Geography and Map Division

For more than 350 years the map was housed in a 16th century castle in Wolfegg, in southern Germany. The introduction to Waldseemüller’s “Cosmographie” is in the Library’s Rare Book and Special Collections Division. This extremely rare work contains the first suggestion that the area of Columbus’ discovery be named “America” in honor of Amerigo Vespucci, who recognized that a “New World,” the so-called fourth part of the world, had been reached through Columbus’ voyage. Before that time, there was no name that collectively identified the Western Hemisphere. The earlier Spanish explorers referred to the area as the Indies believing, as did Columbus, that it was a part of eastern Asia. The Vespucci Family Papers are housed in the Library’s Manuscript Division.

____

The Waldseemüller map opens the new Library exhibition “Rivers, Edens, Empires: Lewis & Clark and the Revealing of America.” It is one of the treasures of the Library and of the Geography and Map Division, which has more than 4.6 million cartographic items in its collections. Many of these items are online in American Memory, the Library’s Web site of more than 120 thematic collections ranging from the papers of U.S. presidents, civil rights leaders and suffragists to early motion pictures, sound recordings, photographs and baseball cards.

# # #

EDITOR’s NOTE: The following articles were shared from pieces that originally appeared in the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47172020), The Namibian (https://www.namibian.com.na/75591/read/Haile-Selassie-–-Why-the-African-Union-is-putting-up-a-statue) and the Daily Monitor (https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/World/Why-African-Union-putting-Haile-Selassie-statue-Rastafarian-god/688340-4976280-18pgqyz/index.html), among other sources.  This also currently appears on the Web site of the Sixth Region Diaspora Caucus (http://www.srdcinternational.org), and thus reflects the occasionally differing perspectives of a variety of news sources and organizations, which we present here unedited.

A statue of Ethiopia’s last emperor has been unveiled outside the African Union’s headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The likeness of Haile Selassie is being given pride of place outside the $200m (£154m) building in recognition for his role in establishing its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

But that might not be the first thing that springs to mind on hearing the name Haile Selassie. The name is perhaps more easily connected with Jamaican singer Bob Marley and Rastafarians.

So who exactly is Haile Selassie, and how did he come to be worshipped as a god by people living thousands of miles away?

First things first: why is he getting a statue?

Haile Selassie was more than 30 years into his reign when he helped establish the OAU. Its first meeting, in May 1963, was held in Addis Ababa.

Ethiopia – which has never been colonized although it was subjected to a five-year military occupation by Mussolini’s Italy – had served as a symbol of African independence throughout the colonial period.

Now other countries were finally gaining independence, and this was a chance to bring nations together to fight against colonization and white minority rule while also coordinating efforts to raise living standards and defend their sovereignty.

“May this convention of union last 1,000 years,” Selassie, who spent a year preparing the city for the meeting, told the gathered delegates.

As it happened, the OAU ceased to exist in its original form in 2002, replaced by the African Union (AU).

But his role in establishing the union has not been forgotten, and the statue is a way for the AU to recognize Selassie’s contribution.

So, how exactly did he come to be seen as a god?

It all comes down to his coronation in 1930, and a “prophecy” made by a Jamaican black rights campaigner, Marcus Garvey, a decade earlier.

Garvey had told his followers in 1920 they should “look to Africa, when a black king shall be crowned, for the day of deliverance is at hand”.

So, when a black man called Ras Tafari was crowned in Ethiopia, many saw that as a sign the prophecy had come true.

In East Africa, Ras Tafari (“chief” Tafari) became Haile Selassie (“power of the trinity”). Almost 8,000 miles away in the West Indies, Haile Selassie became God (or Jah) incarnate – the redeeming messiah – and Ethiopia, the promised land.

In short, the Rastafari movement was born.

Did Selassie believe it himself? Well, he certainly didn’t try to dispel the belief when he visited Jamaica in 1966. The emperor was greeted by thousands, desperate to get a glimpse of their god. Among the devotees was the wife of a young Reggae musician, Bob Marley, who was away in the US.

Rita Marley would later describe how she saw nail marks on Selassie’s palm as he waved at her. It was a moment of religious awakening, and when her husband returned, they embraced the belief.

Three years earlier, Rastafarians had begun to move to Ethiopia and a piece of land Selassie had put aside for black people from the West in 1948. After the visit, the numbers grew larger. Today, the community numbers about 300 people.

But followers were presented with a conundrum after Selassie died in 1975, a year after he was deposed in a Marxist revolution. After all, gods cannot die.

This was resolved after it was argued Selassie’s body was just his earthly body.

Also, it should be noted, Garvey was never a believer. In fact, he was a critic of Selassie.

What was he really like?

Opinion is still split over whether Selassie was good for Ethiopia or not.

A Human Rights Watch report accuses him of acting with “official indifference” to famines in various regions of the country and attempting to conceal the famine of 1972-72, in which an estimated 200,000 people died.

He is also known to have violently cracked down on people who opposed him during his reign.

Marcus Garvey was unimpressed after he fled Ethiopia in 1936 following the invasion of Benito Mussolini’s troops a year earlier, describing Selassie as a “coward” and calling him out for “the terrors of slavery”. The practice was not outlawed in Ethiopia until 1942.

Academic Dr Yohannes Woldemariam has gone as far as to argue that Selassie should be remembered as a dictator. Indeed, he created a constitution which placed all the power in his hands and those of his descendants.

But his supporters argue he was a great leader and modernizer, who was one of the first African leaders to become a figure on the global stage.

His appeal to the League of Nations after his country was invaded is still remembered today – not least because it forms the basis of Bob Marley’s 1976 song, War.

What’s more, he was not made emperor through a chance of birth. Although born into a noble family in 1892, he was only named leader after impressing Menelik III with his intelligence.

And – as the AU’s statue to him reminds people – he was a great advocate for pan-African cooperation, leaving a lasting legacy that continues to have an effect on millions of people across the continent today.

African Union Unveils Haile Selassie Statue At Its Headquarters in Ethiopia

Takudzwa Hillary Chiwanza
Sun, Feb 10, 2019

⦁ In paying respect to Haile Selassie’s role in the formation of the African Union, his statue has been unveiled at the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

⦁ The African Union has paid reverence to one of the most iconic African revolutionaries, Haile Selassie I by⦁  unveiling a statue at the headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The statue was officially unveiled by the AU Commission Chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat, Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame, Ghana’s president Nana Akufo-Addo, and Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. The artists who brought it to life are Bekele Mekonnen, Mesfin Tesfaye and Henock Azene, who are all Ethiopians.

Haile Selassie’s statue becomes the second one to be erected at the AU headquarters. In 2012, Kwame Nkrumah’s statue was unveiled. Kwame Nkrumah is respected for how he championed Pan-Africanism, especially at a time when colonial forces did not want to see any advancement being championed by African leaders.

The unveiling of Haile Selassie’s statue sends a very strong message of Pan-Africanism across Africa. Haile Selassie was one of the leaders who were instrumental in the formation of the continental body, when it was still called the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

Haile Selassie was the leader of Ethiopia at the time (1963), being Emperor of the country. He was the last Emperor of the country. He was deposed in 1974 through a coup after some resentment had grown against him.

Selassie uttered some iconic words when the organization was formed. “May this convention of union last 1,000 years,” he said.

Ethiopia has long been viewed as a beacon of African independence. The country was never colonized – although it was subjected to a five-year military occupation by Mussolini’s Italy.

The African Exponent Weekly

Ethiopians have hailed this development from the African Union.

Header image credit: @terrefebiruk on Twitter

As the forces backing President Nicolas Maduro and National Assembly member and self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido continue to marshal their respective forces in their struggle to establish control of what can only be described as a divided Venezuela, and as the United States seems bent on coercing its allies in Canada and the right-wing nations of Latin America to support a policy of regime change in that country, the international community has increasingly voiced its opinion on the crisis.  The extreme right seems to be represented by the Lima Group of Latin American nations, including the latest ally of US President Donald Trump in Brazil, in calling for the outright overthrow of what they term an “illegitimate” Maduro-led government, with support from the United States, Canada and a few European states.  The left is largely represented by many academics who have signed open letters to the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS), such as Noam Chomsky, former leftist heads of state such as Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, a variety of Socialist governments (Russia, China) and several grassroots, revolutionary and Socialist organizations.  The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) seem to be in the middle, with OAS leaning toward backing Guaido and CARICOM, though divided itself between Guaido and Maduro, generally insisting in unison on a peaceful resolution to the crisis that listens to the people of Venezuela, respects the nation’s sovereignty and avoids bloodshed.  Here, we will discuss some of the international community’s response, so far, to the Venezuela crisis.

The United States Shows Its Face

On January 22, US Vice President Mike Pence officially announced the US’s support for the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the ascension of National Assembly member Juan Guaido to the Presidency. The New York Times announced Pence’s statement in an article by Edward Wong and Ana Vanessa Herrero, “US VP Pence Officially Backs Guaido’s Effort to Oust Maduro”, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/world/americas/venezuela-usa-nicolas-maduro.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer:

“Nicolás Maduro is a dictator with no legitimate claim to power,” Mr. Pence said. “He’s never won the presidency in a free and fair election, and he’s maintained his grip on power by imprisoning anyone who dares to oppose him.”

Mr. Maduro fired back hours later, saying that he had ordered “a total and absolute revision” of Venezuela’s relationship with the United States. Speaking on state television, he asked: “Who elects the president of Venezuela? Mike Pence?”

A week later, Trump announced sanctions against Venezuela’s oil, as reported in a January 29 article by Karen DeYoung, Steven Mufson and Anthony Faiola for The Washington Post, “Trump administration announces sanctions targeting Venezuela’s oil industry”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-announces-sanctions-targeting-venezuelas-oil-industry/2019/01/28/4f4470c2-233a-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html?utm_term=.9f88b59ea61d:

The Trump administration on Monday escalated its efforts to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, blocking all U.S. revenue to Venezuela’s national oil company and calling on members of its armed forces to switch their allegiance to the man the United States now recognizes as Venezuela’s head of state.

Any attempt to harm remaining U.S. diplomats in Venezuela, or violence against the newly recognized president, Juan Guaidó, “will be met with a significant response,” White House national security adviser John Bolton said. …

The measures announced Monday place sanctions on ­PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company, freezing $7 billion in U.S.-based assets and blocking more than $11 billion in revenue that would otherwise flow from oil sales over the next year, Bolton said.

Virtually all of those assets belong to Citgo, the U.S.-based PDVSA subsidiary that owns three refineries in the United States and a nationwide network of pipeline and gas stations, and employs thousands in this country.

International Reaction to the Venezuela Crisis

The German international broadcast Web site Deutsche Welle (https://www.dw.com/en/venezuela-crisis-how-the-world-sees-it/a-47205881) compiled a listing of countries that supported Guaido (the US, the right-leaning Lima , the Organization of American States and Canada), those that stopped short of backing Maduro’s ouster but appeared to back Guaido (Great Britain, France and the European Council) as well as those that continue to recognize Maduro (Cuba, Bolivia, Mexico, Russia, Turkey and China).

Russia’s condemnation of US sanctions and its decision to back Maduro was discussed in The Washington Post‘s January 29, 2019 article “Russia slams U.S. sanctions on Venezuela and promises to back Maduro” by Anton Troianovski (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-slams-us-sanctions-on-venezuela-and-vows-to-back-maduro/2019/01/29/71eb5fe4-23be-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.46b0afcc35c0).

The Organization of American States (OAS), while having already established its pro-Guaido position, released a Resolution back on June 5, 2018 (prior to Guaido’s rise to popularity and declaration of himself as president) which called for the Venezuelan government to allow humanitarian aid and to commit itself to “representative democracy”, as stated in detail on their Web site http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=S-032/18:

Resolution on the Situation in Venezuela
June 5, 2018
(Adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2018)

CONSIDERING that the Charter of the Organization of American States recognizes that representative democracy is an indispensable condition for the stability, peace, and development of the region and that one of the purposes of the OAS is to promote and consolidate representative democracy;

REAFFIRMING the right of the peoples of the Americas to democracy and the obligation of their governments to promote and defend it;

BEARING IN MIND that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law; the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government are, among other things, essential elements of representative democracy;

TAKING NOTE of the report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights “Democratic Institutions, the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Venezuela,” published on February 12, 2018, which reflects the political, economic, social, and humanitarian crisis in that country;

RECALLING that, through its resolution CP/RES. 1095 (2145/18) of February 23, 2018, the Permanent Council requested the Government of Venezuela to reconsider the convening of presidential elections and to implement the measures necessary to prevent the worsening of the humanitarian situation, including accepting the assistance offered by the international community;

CONSIDERING that the aggravation of the political, economic, social, and humanitarian crisis that has caused a deterioration in the standard of living in that country is generating an increasing emigration of Venezuelan citizens and is having impacts on the capacity of some countries of the Hemisphere to meet their different needs, including those pertaining to security, as evidenced at the meeting of the Permanent Council held on April 30, 2018;

RECALLING that resolution CP/RES. 1078 (2108/17) of April 3, 2017, declared that an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional order of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had occurred;

UNDERSCORING that diplomatic initiatives offered by the Permanent Council and undertaken by several member states have either been rebuffed by the Venezuelan Government, or failed until now,

RESOLVES:

1. To declare that the electoral process as implemented in Venezuela, which concluded on May 20, 2018, lacks legitimacy, for not complying with international standards, for not having met the participation of all Venezuelan political actors, and for being carried out without the necessary guarantees for a free, fair, transparent and democratic process.

2. To reaffirm that only through a national dialogue with the participation of all Venezuelan political actors and stakeholders can national reconciliation be achieved and the necessary conditions agreed upon for holding a new electoral process that truly reflects the will of the Venezuelan citizens and peacefully resolves the current crisis in that country.

3. To reiterate that an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional order of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has occurred, as stated in resolution CP/RES. 1078 (2108/17) of April 3, 2017.

4. To urge the Government of Venezuela to take steps to guarantee the separation and independence of the constitutional branches of power and restore the full authority of the National Assembly, the rule of law, and the guarantees and liberties of the population.

5. To urge the Government of Venezuela to allow the entry of humanitarian aid and to implement epidemiological surveillance measures in its country to prevent the aggravation of the humanitarian and public health crisis, particularly against the reappearance of diseases such as measles, malaria, and diphtheria

6. To invite the member states to implement measures to address the humanitarian emergency in Venezuela, including supplying medicines, as well as considering contributions to the competent international organizations to strengthen the institutional capacities of the recipient countries.

7. To instruct the Permanent Council to identify, in coordination with the relevant inter-American and international institutions, the appropriate measures to support the member states that are receiving an increasing number of Venezuelan migrants and refugees.

8. To call upon the member and permanent observer states to implement, in accordance with their respective legal frameworks and applicable international law, the measures deemed appropriate at the political, economic, and financial levels to assist in the restoration of democratic order in Venezuela.

9. To remain seized of the situation in Venezuela in order to support diplomatic actions and additional measures that facilitate the restoration of democratic institutions and social peace, and that promote full respect for human rights and full adherence to the rule of law, within the constitutional framework of Venezuela and in a manner consistent with its international obligations and commitments.

10. To apply, in strict accordance with the letter and spirit of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the mechanisms for the preservation and defense of representative democracy provided under its Articles 20 and 21.

1)The delegations of Antigua and Barbuda and Bolivia stated that they will submit footnotes.

http://scm.oas.org/ag/documentos/Documentos/AG07680E06.doc
Reference: S-032/18

On January 29, the OAS, through its Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, also urged the Venezuelan government to ensure the protection of Guaido and his family, stating that it believes that “his life, personal integrity and personal freedom are at ‘urgent and grave risk.’ It is asking that Venezuelan authorities adopt the measures necessary to protect the president of the National Assembly, who declared himself interim president of the country” (https://www.chron.com/news/world/article/The-Latest-India-closely-following-crisis-in-13560640.php). The site also shares several developments in the crisis, including Russia’s offer to mediate, Maduro’s stated willingness to discuss the dispute in his country, critics of Guaido calling his true intentions into question, and UN human rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet calling for independent investigations into violence linked to protests in Venezuela and the holding of “immediate talks to defuse the increasingly incendiary atmosphere.”

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), divided as to its initial support of the OAS position on Venezuela, met with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres to seek the establishment of a “roadmap to peace” on January 29. CARICOM also released a statement on the crisis (https://newsday.co.tt/2019/01/25/full-caricom-statement-on-venezuelas-political-crisis/) on January 25.

Full CARICOM statement on Venezuela’s political crisis
The following is the full statement issued tonight on the outcome of the meeting.

STATEMENT BY THE CONFERENCE OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENT OF CARICOM ON THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SITUATION IN THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA

The following Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) – Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago; Foreign Ministers of Grenada and Suriname; meeting by video-conference on 24 January 2019, issued the following statement.

“Heads of Government are following closely the current unsatisfactory situation in Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a neighbouring Caribbean country. They expressed grave concern about the plight of the people of Venezuela and the increasing volatility of the situation brought about by recent developments which could lead to further violence, confrontation, breakdown of law and order and greater suffering for the people of the country.

Heads of Government reaffirmed their guiding principles of non-interference and non-intervention in the affairs of states, respect for sovereignty, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for human rights and democracy.

Heads of Government reiterated that the long-standing political crisis, which has been exacerbated by recent events, can only be resolved peacefully through meaningful dialogue and diplomacy.

In this regard, Heads of Government offered their good offices to facilitate dialogue among all parties to resolve the deepening crisis.

Reaffirming their commitment to the tenets of Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter which calls for Members States to refrain from the threat or the use of force and Article 21 of the Charter of the Organization of American States which refers to territorial inviolability, the Heads of Government emphasized the importance of the Caribbean remaining a Zone of Peace.

Heads of Government called on external forces to refrain from doing anything to destabilize the situation and underscored the need to step back from the brink and called on all actors, internal and external, to avoid actions which would escalate an already explosive situation to the detriment of the people of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and which could have far-reaching negative consequences for the wider region.

Heads of Government agreed that the Chairman of Conference, Dr the Honourable Timothy Harris, Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis would seek an urgent meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General to request the U.N’s assistance in resolving the issue.”

Friday, 25 January 2019: Carla Bridglal

An article on Telesur English (https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/500-Public-Figures-Sign-Letter-Supporting-Peace-in-Venezuela-20190207-0002.html) tells about a letter signed by 500 public figures from 27 Latin American and European countries, including former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, that was sent to Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Uraguayan President Tabare Vasquez, both of whom were scheduled to attend the first meeting of the International Contact Group on Venezuela in Montivideo, Uraguay on February 7. For more on that letter, check the link above.

Other organizations which perhaps have not received the acknowledgement of the international diplomatic community and whose statements are thus often ignored by the “mainstream media” also made statements, from a letter by an organization called the Jamaica Peace Council (https://jamaicapeacecouncil.wordpress.com/2019/01/29/letter-get-out-of-venezuelas-internal-affairs/) to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Israel, which released this statement on January 25:

The Communist Party of Israel (CPI) strongly condemns the blatant intervention of US imperialism and its allies in the internal affairs of Venezuela aiming to remove the elected President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro.

It is clear that the United States is seeking to take advantage of Venezuela’s economic problems, which were essentially also caused by its embargo policy, to roll back into the age of right wing and fascist puppet regimes. As in the past, Latin America, which the USA regards as its backyard, is to be turned into a haven of reaction and fascism in the service of US corporations. The immediate recognition of the self-proclaimed “interim president” by the USA and other right wing governments is contrary to any international law and proves the directing of this coup attempt by the imperialists.

The plan of regime changes in Venezuela is going for a long time. The present US move to recognize the opposition leader Juan Gerardo Guaidó Márquez as interim President and to call upon other Latin American countries to follow USA is a new pattern of regime change which will jeopardize the peace and stability in the entire Latin America and particularly can pushing Venezuela into a civil war.

The imperialist design of creating dual powers in Venezuela will deepen the social divide and undermine the authority of the State thereby endangering its sovereignty. Moreover, the US military intervention is looming large over Venezuela. However, the Armed forces in Venezuela expressed their resolve to meet any such challenge.

The Communist Party of Israel hopes that with the popular support of Venezuelan people, President Maduro will be able to defeat all imperialist machinations. The CPI urges upon the governments of Israel and other Middle East countries not to support any effort of Trump administration to destabilize the elected governments in Latin America especially in Venezuela against the will of the people.

The Communist Party of Pakistan also expressed its concern:

Communist Party of Pakistan is profoundly concerned about the situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The recent rogue attempts to oust the legitimate President Nicolas Maduro from power is against all the international norms.

President Nicolas Maduro is elected through an election, testified by, a contingent of international observers. to be fair and free.

The consistent covert and overt attempts of the Trump administration to destabilize the democratically elected government of Venezuela and illegitimately endorsing the presidency of self proclaimed undemocratic [Juan] Guaido is an act of cowardice and unprecedented breach of the diplomatic norms, as well as a clear violation of UN charter.

Communist party of Pakistan strongly condemns this wicked behavior of the imperialist United States of America.

It is highly encouraging that the brave people of Venezuela, the Army and Judiciary stand by the democratically elected government.

Communist Party of Pakistan solutes the struggle and resolute standing of the people of Venezuela. We are confident that the people of Venezuela be victorious through its unity and the shenanigan forces of imperialism and capitalist barbarism will be defeated for all times to come.

In profound solidarity with the people of Venezuela.

Politbureau
CP Pakistan 🇵🇰

The Activist Left Responds

The Web site Breaking News reported that former United Nations rapporteur Alfred de Zayas stated that the actions of the US amounted to “economic warfare” against Venezuela in the article “Former UN Rapporteur Denounces US ‘Economic Warfare’ against Venezuela”, https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/former-un-rapporteur-us-sanctions-against-venezuela-causing-economic-and-humanitarian-crisis-900603.html:

A former United Nations rapporteur has criticised the US for engaging in “economic warfare” against Venezuela which he claimed was the real reason for the economic and humanitarian crisis facing the country.

Alfred de Zayas, who last year became the first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years, also suggested in his recently published UN report, that US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law.

Mr de Zayas, an American lawyer, writer, historian and former secretary of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), presented his Venezuela report to the HRC in September.

In the report, Mr De Zayas recommended, among other actions, that the International Criminal Court investigate economic sanctions against Venezuela as possible crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. …

Speaking to The Independent yesterday Mr de Zayas also suggested his research into the causes of the country’s economic crisis has so far largely been ignored.

“When I come and I say the emigration is partly attributable to the economic war waged against Venezuela and is partly attributable to the sanctions, people don’t like to hear that. They just want the simple narrative that socialism failed and it failed the Venezuelan people,” Mr de Zayas told The Independent.

Mr de Zayas went on to suggest that sanctions are part of a US effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government and install a friendlier regime.

“I’ve seen that happen in the Human Rights Council, how the United States twists arms and convinces countries to vote the way they want them to vote, or there will be economic consequences, and these things are not reflected in the press,” he told The Independent.

Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and other abundant natural resources including gold, bauxite and coltan.

“If you crush this government and you bring in a neoliberal government that is going to privatise everything and is going to sell out, a lot of transitional corporations stand to gain enormous profits and the United States is driven by the transnational corporations,” the former UN special rapporteur told The Independent. …

In his report, Mr de Zayas expressed concern that those calling the situation a “humanitarian crisis” are being “weaponised” to discredit the government and make violent overthrow more “palatable”. …

“Only the Venezuelans have a right to decide, not the United States, not the United Kingdom … What is urgent is to help the Venezuelan people through international solidarity – genuine humanitarian aid and a lifting of the financial blockade so that Venezuela can buy and sell like any other country in the world – the problems can be solved with good faith and common sense.”

Mr de Zayas is one of 70 signatories of an open letter, along with Noam Chomsky and over 70 other academics and experts, who have condemned what they described as a US-backed coup attempt against the Venezuelan government.

Open Letter to the US: Stop Interfering in Venezuela’s Internal Politics

The Web site Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/24/open-letter-united-states-stop-interfering-venezuelas-internal-politics) posted an open letter to the United States urging it to “stop interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, a letter which was signed by 70 activists, journalists and academics, including Mr. de Zayas and professor Norm Chomsky. We include the letter in its entirety below, and the full list of signatories can be reviewed on the Common Dreams Web site.

Thursday, January 24, 2019 by Common Dreams

An Open Letter to the United States: Stop Interfering in Venezuela’s Internal Politics
If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability.

by Noam Chomsky, Laura Carlsen, Miguel Tinker Salas, Greg Grandin

The following open letter—signed by 70 scholars on Latin America, political science, and history as well as filmmakers, civil society leaders, and other experts—was issued on Thursday, January 24, 2019 in opposition to ongoing intervention by the United States in Venezuela.

The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government. Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.

Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years. This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.

“Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.”

Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions. These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloff in oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.

Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice. By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides. The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.

The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.

“The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.”

Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.

In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections. There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.

For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Related posts will share information from Justice Initiative on the crisis in Venezuela, including a commentary by Greg Palast on the influence of White Supremacy as a driver of the efforts to unseat Maduro and destabilize Venezuela, and an Open Letter written by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to the people of the United States. Look for these posts in the next few days.

As a young , idealistic activist in Venezuela, Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias led two unsuccessful 1992 coup attempts against then-President Carlos Andres Perez, who was perceived as having broken promises to the people to resist neoliberal economic policies being pushed by the United States (US) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Chavez was freed two years later after Perez was impeached for his conduct as President, and his popularity rose until he won the presidency himself in 1998. Several anti-Chavez demonstrations, recall referenda and coup attempts by ideological foes would ensue, most famously the April 11-April 14, 2002 attempt by businessman Pedro Carmona in which Chavez agreed to be detained, and then saw popular support force Carmona to release Chavez and surrender. All of the subsequent coup attempts, referenda and other anti-Chavez actions would fail (with the exceptions of a few significant Constitutional ballot measures), apparently due to the underestimation of the people’s support and the charisma of “Chavismo”. Thus, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was established and strengthened, a reference to Simon Bolivar (1783-1830), who opposed Spanish colonial powers and is widely revered across Latin America.

Critics assailed Chavez for his Socialist politics as well as what were considered increasingly autocratic policies (apparently in an effort to ensure that the Bolivarian Revolution would endure), accusing him and his administration of cronyism and nepotism as he successfully won third and fourth terms as President, the last one in 2012.

Hugo Chavez fell ill in mid-2011, went to Cuba for medical treatment, and finally died of complications from advanced colon cancer on March 5, 2013, in Caracas, at the young age of 58. On April 14, 2013, a new election was held according to the Constitution, and Vice President Nicolas Maduro (pictured above, left) was elected President.

Maduro is considered to be less charismatic than Chavez was, as well as perhaps a less capable administrator, though many of the economic and social problems that beset Venezuela today were not of his making. According to an article about the Venezuelan crisis on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela),

A socioeconomic and political crisis began in Venezuela in 2010 under the presidency of Hugo Chávez and has continued into the current presidency of Nicolás Maduro. The current situation is the worst economic crisis in Venezuela’s history and among the worst crises experienced in the Americas, with hyperinflation, soaring hunger, disease, crime and death rates, and massive emigration from the country. Observers and economists have stated that the crisis is not the result of a conflict or natural disaster but the consequences of populist policies that began under the Chávez administration’s Bolivarian Revolution, with the Brookings Institution stating that “Venezuela has really become the poster child for how the combination of corruption, economic mismanagement, and undemocratic governance can lead to widespread suffering”.

The research site also blames “a drop in oil production from lack of maintenance and investment” as well as stating that “Political corruption, chronic shortages of food and medicine, closure of companies, unemployment, deterioration of productivity, authoritarianism, human rights violations, gross economic mismanagement and high dependence on oil have also contributed to the worsening crisis.” It goes on to note that

The contraction of national and per capita GDPs in Venezuela between 2013 and 2017 was more severe than that of the United States during the Great Depression, or of Russia, Cuba, and Albania following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

By 2017 hunger had escalated to the point where nearly 75% of the population had lost an average of over 8 kg (over 19 lbs) in weight, almost 90% of the population was living in poverty, and more than half did not have enough income to meet their basic food needs. From the beginning of the crisis to 2017, more than 2.3 million Venezuelans have left the country. Venezuela led the world in murder rates, with 90 per 100,000 people killed in 2015 (compared to 5.35 per 100,000 in the US or 1.68 per 100,000 in Canada) making it one of the most violent countries in the world.

The administration of President Chavez had brought the country’s oil income to bear in the provision of public services, especially to poor citizens, which included free medical clinics, food and housing subsidies, improving literacy and raising the general standard of living.

But Venezuela’s heavy dependence on oil for its income, as well as continuous efforts to destabilize his Socialist government by the United States through the support of coup attempts and widespread infiltration of Venezuelan civil society by US-based neoliberal organizations, ultimately helped bring Venezuela to the precipice of economic collapse. During Chavez’s terms, several of his efforts certainly did not succeed: policies meant to strengthen food security through price controls led to food shortages and ultimately hyperinflation, a housing crisis became worse, and crime in Venezuela increased sharply, possibly due to political conflict in the country. Estimates are that over two million Venezuelans have fled the country, and there has been an explosion in suicides. Accusations of corruption were regularly lodged against the Chavez administration by political foes (who usually were themselves accused of being connected to elites and not with the people), who claimed he used bribery and intimidation to score large electoral victories despite alleged low popularity among the populace.

After a May 2017 Constituent Assembly election was widely criticized by Western and other international observers, an election was held in 2018 in which Maduro was re-elected as President. The election was disputed, and in January 2019 the National Assembly of Venezuela declared the results invalid and named Juan Guaido (pictured above, right) the acting President. National protests were organized against Maduro by Guaido and the National Assembly. The United States, which has imposed one sanction or another against Venezuela over the years, including 2015 sanctions under the Obama administration, announced further sanctions against Venezuela and have threatened to seize its oil companies that operate in the US under Citgo. In response, Maduro severed diplomatic ties to the US and ordered US diplomats out of the country.

Slowly, the international community is responding to this crisis. Western nations, including the United States, Canada, several European nations and right-wing governments in South America from the Lima Group of the Organization of American States (OAS) have supported the protests and backed Guaido in calling for Maduro’s ouster, while a number of CARICOM (Caribbean Community) countries have joined Cuba, Russia and several left-leaning Latin American countries in supporting Maduro, and have met with OAS and United Nations officials to try to resolve the crisis. Mexico and others have urged a peaceful resolution to a situation that threatens to explode in violence.

Western analysts have largely blamed the country’s economic troubles on a combination of mismanagement, corruption and what economists termed “Dutch disease” (a term coined by The Economist in 1977 and developed as an economic model in 1982, inspired by a situation in which The Netherlands’ heavy dependence on natural gas as its major export led to the collapse of other sectors of the economy), which they say Maduro has failed, like Chavez before him, to anticipate and manage. Again, from Wikipedia:

According to analysts, the economic woes Venezuela continued to suffer through under President Nicolás Maduro would have occurred even were Chávez still in power. In early 2013, shortly after Chávez’s death, Foreign Policy stated that whoever succeeded Chávez would “inherit one of the most dysfunctional economies in the Americas—and just as the bill for the deceased leader’s policies comes due”.

Maduro has been criticized for only concentrating on public opinion, instead of tending to practical issues which economists have warned about, or creating ideas to improve Venezuela’s economic prospects.

By 2014, Venezuela had entered an economic recession and by 2016, the country had an inflation rate of 800%, the highest rate in its history. The International Monetary Fund expect[ed] inflation in Venezuela to be 1,000,000% for 2018.

While Western analysts blamed the country’s economic troubles on a failure to deal effectively with this “Dutch disease”, the fate of the Venezuelan economy can also be seen as the result of the more infamous “resource curse”, in which nations that possess an abundant natural resource often find themselves impoverished, often due to the malicious actions of foreign powers whose aggressive, invasive and often warlike actions are geared toward stripping the country of its natural wealth and thus impoverishing the populace.

Examples of the “resource curse” can be found in Afrikan countries such as South Africa (diamonds), Nigeria (oil) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (diamonds, gold, oil and tantalum powder used to synthesize coltan for cell phones). A famous example of a South American “resource curse” was Chile in the 1970s, when the lust for the country’s copper mines (among other resources) led the Richard Nixon administration in the US to support the overthrow and murder of Chilean President Salvador Allende (another Socialist leader) on September 11, 1973, after two previous coup attempts had failed. The resultant dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet lasted for the next 17 years, marked by thousands of murders, disappearances and a few high-profile assassinations, most notably that of Orlando Letelier and his American assistant Ronni Karpen Moffitt by a car bomb in downtown Washington, DC on September 21, 1976.

The parallel to Venezuela’s situation is seen when one examines the history of coup attempts against Chavez (and subsequent attempts on Maduro’s life) and the country’s economic collapse in the context of similar implosions of Latin American and Afrikan nations that opposed US influence. See the web sites Mint Press News, “Make The Economy Scream” (https://www.mintpressnews.com/make-the-economy-scream-on-economic-terrorism/163027/); Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973 by Peter Kornbluh for the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 8, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm; “Make The Economy Scream: Secret Documents Show Nixon, Kissinger Role Backing 1973 Chile Coup”, https://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/10/40_years_after_chiles_9_11; and “Make The Economy Scream, This Time in Venezuela” (failedevolution.blogspot.com/2018/05/make-economy-scream-this-time-in.html), as well as doing a search for that quote, to see how economic destabilization was used to set up countries for conquest while apportioning blame to the victims of the economic machinations, with Chile in 1973 as the most famous case. This is not to definitively state that Venezuela’s problems are due to malicious Western interference alone, but one must consider the historical evidence.

Articles on the History and Background of Venezuela’s Economic and Political Crisis

Kirk Semple wrote an article in The New York Times titled “Echoes of the Past in Venezuela Crisis, but Heard More Lightly” (Jan. 24, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/world/americas/venezuela-latin-america.html); and Luc Cohen penned a piece titled “How Venezuela got here: a timeline of the political crisis” (Reuters, January 29, 2029, https://news.yahoo.com/venezuela-got-timeline-political-crisis-015722552.html), that provides a brief timeline of the crisis in Venezuela from the death of former President Hugo Chavez in March 2013 to the imposition of sanctions by the US in January 2019, with references to detailed reports on specific events.

Wikipedia’s rather detailed discussion of “Dutch disease” can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease, while their explanation of the “resource curse”, which perhaps de-emphasizes the role of imperialism, can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse.

Who Is Juan Guaido?

There are several articles that have been written about the 35-year-old National Assembly member who has declared himself the new President of Venezuela.

Ana Vanessa Herrero and Nicholas Casey wrote the article “Who Is Juan Guaidó? Venezuela’s Young Opposition Leader” for The New York Times on January 22, 2019 (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/world/americas/juan-guaido-facts-history-bio.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer).

Nicole Chavez and Rafael Romo of CNN wrote “Who is Venezuela’s Juan Guaido?” on January 24, 2019 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/americas/juan-guaido-venezuela/index.html).

Scott Smith and Christine Armario reported on the Venezuelan government’s barring Guaido from leaving the country, which sparked denunciations from the US and led US National Security Adviser John Bolton to threaten reprisals if any harm comes to Guaido. Their article for Time and the Associated Press, “Venezuela Bars Opposition Leader Juan Guaido From Leaving the Country”, can be found at http://time.com/5516132/venezuela-juan-guaido-barred-leaving/.

And Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal for Telesur wrote a penetrating and critical look at Guaido that explores his organization Popular Will, the use of “guarimbas” in street protests that have led to violence, and the involvement of foreign organizations like Otpor (a Serbian political organization), Stratfor (an American geopoliticalm intelligence platform and publisher) and the National Endowment for Democracy (US) in their article, “The Making of Juan Guaido: US Regime Change Laboratory At Work” (https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/The-Making-of-Juan-Guaido-US-Regime-Change-Laboratory-At-Work-20190129-0021.html).

We will share some of the international community’s responses, including statements from CARICOM, OAS, Socialist organizations from Israel and Pakistan, and a group of 70 human rights and political activists in a companion piece.

Too often at Pan-Afrikan conferences, when the discussion turns to issues of activism and revolutionary principles, the Brothers take to the podium and fill the air with grand pronouncements and militant fervor. Most of these speeches are indeed quite relevant, necessary even, but in the process the Sisters often tend to be left out, sitting in the audience as though their only purpose is to listen and not to offer their own viewpoints. I have been told something similar on many occasions by the Queen of our personal castle. And on Saturday, November 17, 2018, at the conclusion of the public Summit, I was told this again by a Sister in the audience who noticed that many of the remarks were, again, male-dominated despite our (apparently less-than-adequate) efforts. If there was one oversight of the 2018 Summit that I would correct, it is that a conscious, intentional effort was not sufficiently made to ensure that more Sisters had an opportunity to address the audience.

And there were strong Sisters whose voices needed to be elevated more.  Some, such as African Union Ambassador Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao, were unable to join us at the Summit because they were out of town (Ambassador Quao was in Ethiopia). Some were lost among the many voices who sought to address the audience that weekend.  Sis. Makeda Kandake (pictured, below) of Guadeloupe has been a strong organizer for Reparations for Afrikan people, the ending of France’s political stranglehold on its colonies in the Eastern Caribbean (such as Guadeloupe and Martinique), and the organizing of the grassroots Afrikan communities there to force the international community to hear their voices.  Having recently recovered from the devastation of the series of hurricanes that devastated her home as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, she is now organizing for conferences and collaborative efforts between Afrikan activists to be held and directed from her home country.  More time should have been reserved for her to make formal presentations at the public Summit event, though she was able to be directly involved in discussions with other Pan-Afrikan activists as part of SRDC’s work to build international coalitions on the way to re-establishing the Pan African Diaspora Union (PADU) on the global level.

As it was, however, Sisters were not outright excluded from speaking at the Summit. Below, we include some of the statements made by Sister Activists from Afrika (Liberia), the United States (Maryland) and Europe (The Netherlands), as attendees at the Summit offered their suggestions and planned initiatives to help lift up and liberate Afrikan people. There were also statements made by Mother members of the Maryland Council of Elders, as well as Sisters who participated in State Presentations from Maryland and Washington State, which will be shared in a future article. Whether they were at the podium or speaking from the floor, Sisters and Mothers did indeed have important things to say, and we are honored to be able to share their words.

In this article, we feature the statements of Dr. Barryl Biekman of The Netherlands, Sis. Mouna of ECOWAS Women out of Liberia, and Mama Victory Swift of the Maryland Council of Elders, the Sixth Region Diaspora Caucus and Our Victorious City. These were some of the most powerful statements of the Summit, as they gave the rest of us important direction for recognizing, acknowledging and respecting the power of the Black Woman, reaching back home to our Sisters and Brothers in Afrika and ensuring that, when working on behalf of our Youth, that we “leave no one behind.”

Dr. Barryl Biekman on Women of Afrika at the United Nations

Dr. Barryl Biekman, founder and lead organizer for the African Union African Diaspora Council (AUADC) of Europe, has been organizing people of Afrikan descent from her home in The Netherlands for decades. She has been at the forefront of resistance to the racist Christmastime character known as Black Pete (“Swarte Piet”), known in fables as Santa’s black-skinned assistant who, instead of giving treats and toys to good little children, instead kidnaps “bad” little children and spirits them away from home, never to return. She works tirelessly to organize Afrikan populations in Europe to raise their collective voice in the African Union, as does Professor David Horne in the United States. She is in regular contact with Afrikan activists in Germany, the United Kingdom and Dimonas, Israel; indeed, Dr. Khazriel Ben Yehudah of the Afrikan Hebrew Israelites was also in attendance at the Summit, largely because she was there as well. She was among the Pan-Afrikan activists who participated in the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa. Born in Suriname, she has worked for well over a decade in cooperation with SRDC to organize Afrikan people in Europe to establish their voice in the African Union as well as in the United Nations. In January 2015, she gave the keynote address at the official launch of the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent, and has contributed to the efforts of the UN’s Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, which she has continued to champion in the years since.

Aside from participating in several key meetings during the Summit to forge organizational relationships with the Continental Afrikan delegates from organizations such as the African Diaspora Union (Afridu) and the diplomatic delegations from The Gambia and Liberia, she made important observations regarding the African Union, the United Nations and the status of women. “The African Union has declared, until 2020, the Decade of Afrikan Women. And in the Commission on the Status of Women, every year in March, at the United Nations, Afrikan Women [of the Diaspora] are together with Afrikan Women from the Continent. And they are doing amazing jobs. Amazing jobs. Because people must realize that women in some parts of Afrika don’t have access to land, not to finance. … And these women are doing incredible work.”

Sis. Mouna, ECOWAS Women (Liberia) on Bringing the Knowledge Back Home

One group that is participating in the March events at the United Nations on the status of women is the ECOWAS Women. Sis. Mouna, from Liberia, is the President of ECOWAS Women, an organization of Sisters from West Africa who are organizing in the area of the Economic Organization of West African States (ECOWAS). “There’s a United Nations Commission on the Status of Women every year, where women from all walks of life come together, from all organizations, to put their case forward,” she said, echoing Dr. Biekman’s comments. “We were privileged to apply for a side event this year. The deadline was the 9th of this November. So we applied and they will get back to us on November 29. If we are selected, then we can form a synergy, come together and form something to present on that day, instead of us doing it alone. You can come with your plan, I can come with my plan, because we are from Liberia, we have people from Nigeria and other parts of Afrika. And the side event will be visited by everybody, and we’ll be on the United Nations Compound.

“So the Sheroes Sisterhood is doing it with us, the ECOWAS Women. And what we do is, anything that is in the interest of women, we look our for the protection of the Woman.”

She addressed issues faced by Afrikans in general and Afrikan women, in particular, in receiving the respect from Europeans and men that they deserve. “Afrikans don’t need to be coming here and looked down upon. … We need to believe in ourselves. … Whatever we see here in America, we can take it home and make it better. So, with this side event, we can encourage ourselves, and we [can] come together as one. …”

She also discussed Afrikans who move to the West and never return home to Afrika. “People come here and don’t want to go back, they want to stay here [but] at the end of the day, we have freedom back home! What we need is for our governments to understand that they can’t continue to look down on us [and should] give us the rights that we deserve. They say that America is getting our citizens. So, if everybody is leaving Afrika and coming to America to stay, what’s going to make a difference back home? Nobody’s going to be left back home who can make a difference. So, can we come together as one?

“I’m an Afrikan woman, who is proud to be an Afrikan, who is coming here to tell my people that we don’t have to abandon home. We can leave home, but not abandon home. We come, get experience, get the good things that we see, go back home and make an impact. Do not just leave everything there, come here and stay. I don’t see freedom here. I see freedom back home. Back home, I’m president of the ECOWAS Women. Liberian women. Strong women. Here I’m nothing. Here, I have to do everything for myself. Back home, we come together as people. We see one another. We don’t just get on the Internet and that’s it. … Back home, we interact. My brother, my mother, my family, we live together. We have to make people see these things. Why? Because leaving home to come to America, because of hunger, because of bad governance, people don’t want to see their children hungry. [Because] your children are hungry, your children cannot go to school, you cannot pay your children’s school fees, you have to come to find a greener pasture. But if we get our governments to see that these things must change, we will find ourselves coming back home. We will find people staying home. And coming here to just … get experience.

“So, we are open for partnership. We have applied for the side event in March, they will get back to us November 29, then we have to get our Concept Note, our Proposal. … We’ve got to come together and encourage one another and start from here.”

[The United Nations did reply and approved the application of the ECOWAS Women for the side event at the March UN conference — Editor.]

“Leave None Behind”: Mama Victory Swift (Maryland Council of Elders and Our Victorious City)

Mama Victory Swift is a member of the Maryland Council of Elders, as well as founder of the organization Our Victorious City, named for her youngest son, Victorious Swift, who was tragically murdered in March 2017. Mama Victory did a number of things behind the scenes throughout the weekend to help ensure the Summit ran smoothly, including financing the food for one day of the Summit so the attendees could eat for free, but she also made several important statements during the Summit that reflected the level of commitment that one would expect to see from a consistent community activist who is also a mother deeply touched by the senseless loss that threatens us all who live in an environment where so many struggle to survive. Her comments to the audience reflected the personal concern that should shake us out of our intellectual arrogance, laziness, fear and inertia, and make the struggle real for all of us.

“All roads lead to Afrika,” she told the audience on Saturday, much as Mama Tomiko also said. “We have to be able to see the forest for the trees. Everything we’re doing collectively and individually leads us all back to the Motherland, leads us all back to the Continent. Everything we’re doing in Baltimore, whatever we’re doing in Seattle, whatever’s being done in Detroit, Ghana, Liberia, whatever is being done, the purpose of those efforts is for us to come together as a people and to reclaim our name, our culture and our land back. That is our purpose, and I don’t think any of us in this room are dismissed from that agenda. Am I correct? That is our agenda. And … we do need a collective focus on how to get our land back, but I think that we are all collectively doing what we’re doing wherever we’re doing it, so that all roads will lead back to Afrika.”

The day before, speaking about connecting with Afrika and making that connection for the masses of the people, Mama Victory stressed the importance of making personal connections with the people, and most importantly, the children. “Is there any organization out here that works with youth? … It is absolutely possible for us to collaborate, from wherever we are, to make this a collaborative, so we in Baltimore and those in [places like] Seattle, we can set a date and all of us from different states can go together with children from our respective areas, together, to Ghana. So we can do that. That is something we can think about, that we should do, that if we just put our minds to it, we can do. … I want to communicate with everyone that signed that registration. …

“The one thing I wanted to take away is the assignment that we have. … We have to speak, for the next year, to every Afrikan we see. If you walk past an Afrikan, you speak. Everyone, even the ones of us who are lost. … Because that grows unity. That’s something that we’ve been indoctrinated to not do. And that keeps us separated. So when you see another human being that has the same melanated skin as you, you speak whether they speak or not … because that grows unity. That’s something that they’re not accustomed to. That’s something that we’re not accustomed to. I walked in this room today and there were people who didn’t speak to me and we know better. We know better than that. … And we’re then obligated and responsible to do better. Because, see, love is an action word. It’s ‘to love’. And because it’s an action word, we have to move on it, if we’re really serious about growing a nation of people who are waking up and arising from their sleep. The first part of that is having a human connection that we’ve been indoctrinated to discontinue, out of fear. So, speak. That’s one.

“Two is, it’s not enough for us to save our own selves. … My youngest child, Victorious Swift, was murdered last March. Now Victorious, from the age of five, was a founder of an organization. He was a warrior, he is a warrior. His spirit is so profound that the energy of his life force still exists, not only with me and mine, but nation-globally. He did more than I even knew he did. But it’s not enough for us to fight and save our own children. If we will not fight to save all children, then we’ve dropped the ball before we’ve even started. Because — I say this, I’ve said it for years — we can raise our children to be the most phenomenal human beings, the most phenomenal warriors, on this planet, but if we don’t reach the ones who didn’t get it, that’s the one who will meet ours in the middle of the night, in an afternoon going to their car, on their way home — and steal their lives. We have a responsibility, to raise all of our children … and , really, really, really — leave none behind.”

Next SRDC Summit Article: Words From The Elders

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following three-part commentary by Heather Gray of Justice Initiative discusses the current Trump Administration policy of criminalizing Central and South American refugees who have amassed at the US southern border in the context of the history of US aggression, repression and counterinsurgency that has so destabilized countries such as Honduras (from which many of the refugees have travelled) that families with children have undertaken a dangerous journey of several thousand miles, on foot, to reach the United States.  The recent death in US custody of a seven-year-old girl by dehydration and shock, and the callous response to her tragic death by Administration officials, should give us all pause to contemplate how far into the bowels of cruelty and Isfet (disorder, injustice, untruth, disharmony, imbalance, unrighteousness) the United States and its citizens are willing to descend.  In the three installments below, including the text of a report narrated by actor and activist Susan Sarandon and an April 2015 report by Ramona Wadid, Ms. Gray discusses some of the history of the School of the Americas (now named the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation or WHINSEC) and its destabilization of Latin America, which human rights activists say is the real cause of the current migration of refugees to the United States.

Part I: Refugees: “Blaming the Victims”
Heather Gray [hmcgray@earthlink.net]
December 15, 2018
Justice Initiative 

Foreword

Donald Trump consistently blames refugees for wanting to enter the United States from Central America for what is most likely the result of United States military training and policies in the area that have led to death, destruction, destabilization and loss and/or lack of civil liberties. No doubt, these refugees have good reason to leave their countries. Yet, Trump continues to inappropriately blame these victims.

U.S. policies? Much of the destabilization in Central America comes from its military, many of whom have been trained in the United States. One of the issues is that there are parallels with the training of the foreign military in the United States with the philosophy of the U.S. domestic FBI’s COINTELPRO (1956-1971) program (Counter Intelligence Program). CONTELPRO targeted activists in the U.S. such as Martin Luther King, H. Rap Brown and countless others in the U.S. who struggled and organized for justice in America.

COINTELPRO continues to target activists in the United States under the guise of what is now known as BIE – Black Identity Extremists. The U.S. international training of military continues to incorporate this directive of targeting civil rights, human rights, environmental, and other activists.

What is the primary goal of COINTELPRO and US militarization domestically and internationally? It is for money/resources. As Major General Smedley Butler had wisely stated in the 1930’s, the military services and war serve at the behest of corporate America and the goal therefore, is to establish an environment that allows corporate entities to have control to exploit and/or have access to resources for their financial benefit. No one states this issue better than Butler. Here are his comments from the 1930’s.

Butler also famously eulogized his own career as follows:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” (American History USA)

The South American military are being trained in the U.S. not on the pretext of protecting or advancing democratic principles. Instead, they are trained in the U.S. to make their own country amenable to American corporate interests.

America’s Early Colonial History and LIC

In the 20th and 21st centuries, U.S. policies around the world, both economically and militarily, have been questionable at best. U.S. international military aggression outside of the Americas began with the Philippines in the beginning of the 20th century with the Philippine/American War (1898-1902). After the war, the U.S. launched its Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) program in the Philippines with the creation of the Philippine Constabulary. The Philippine Constabulary is, even today, a national police organization created principally to protect American and Filipino corporate and military elite interests.

In 1987, Philippine scholar Walden Bello, who has written extensively about LIC, stated:

In a very real sense the current battle is merely “round four” of the confrontation between the U.S. imperial power and Philippine nationalism that began in 1898. Threading through the continuing conflict has been the insurgents’ goal of liberating the country from domination by the United States. When the nationalist element is joined to the lower classes’ struggle for land and equality, as it has been in the Philippines, then the revolutionary enterprise has turned out to be both explosive and enduring. And the costs of mounting a counterinsurgency campaign are getting progressively higher.

U.S. intervention in the Philippines also has a broader significance in third world affairs. Given its status as a quasi-colony, the Philippines has, in the past, enjoyed the dubious distinction of serving as America’s principal proving ground for developing and testing strategies and tactics for low intensity conflict (LIC). America’s first major overseas LIC engagement, the Philippine-American War, allowed the U.S. Army free rein to develop and test a variety of counterinsurgency tactics that are still emulated today. Fifty years later, in the early 1950s, there was an effort to transfer to Vietnam some of the lessons that the United States had gained in the struggle against the Huk guerrillas in the Philippines. Today, the Philippines, together with Central America, serves as a laboratory for experimenting with LIC tactics, which have been revitalized and revised after the debacle in Vietnam. (Walden Bello)

I witnessed the impact of this U.S. targeted ‘violence’ training while in the Philippines in 1989, which, in addition to the Philippine Constabulary, has also had many of its military trained in the U.S. What I witnessed in the Philippines was paramilitary groups, funded by the United States, that were killing and/or threatening, for example, union leaders and those working on behalf of the poor, including liberation Catholic priests, one of whom I met who was in hiding at the time.

Liberation theologians have been targeted by the LIC-U.S. trained military primarily because these theologians take a stand against the oppressive capitalist infrastructure. Liberation theology originally focused in Latin America but spread to other countries as well. Here is a description of the concept:

Liberation theology, religious movement arising in late 20th-century Roman Catholicism and centered in Latin America. It sought to apply religious faith by aiding the poor and oppressed through involvement in political and civic affairs. It stressed both heightened awareness of the “sinful” socioeconomic structures that caused social inequities and active participation in changing those structures. Liberation theologians believed that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor. They perceived that the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America was fundamentally different from the church in Europe…(Britannica)

On-Going U.S. International “Low-Intensity Conflict” Policies

Regarding LIC in South America, we need, again, to consider the U.S. School of the Americas (SOA) or what is now referred to as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). Founded in 1946, it is located in Fort Benning, Georgia. In this school, the United States trains the military of South American countries to serve a somewhat similar role as the Philippine Constabulary and/or even more violent and extreme, if that’s possible.

It could also be said that the WHINSEC in the U.S. is training the South American military to oppress their own people. So, through this LIC policy, instead of the United States military going into El Salvador, Honduras, Columbia, Argentina, etc. the U.S. trains troops from these countries to serve the interests of the United States and the friendly elite of the South American countries. Again, it is a “policing” or “militarization” of countries in what the United States considers its corporate empire of interest.

Here is briefly some information about SOA/WHINSEC from Lesley Gill. Lesley Gill is Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair, Vanderbilt University. She is the author of Teetering on the Rim: Global Restructuring, Daily Life, and the Armed Retreat of the Bolivian State; Precarious Dependencies: Gender, Class, and Domestic Service in Bolivia; and Peasants, Entrepreneurs, and Social Change: Frontier Development in Lowland Bolivia.

Located at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, the School of the Americas (soa) is a U.S. Army center that has trained more than sixty thousand soldiers and police, mostly from Latin America, in counterinsurgency and combat-related skills since it was founded in 1946. So widely documented is the participation of the School’s graduates in torture, murder, and political repression throughout Latin America that in 2001 the School officially changed its name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. Lesley Gill goes behind the façade and presents a comprehensive portrait of the School of the Americas. Talking to a retired Colombian general accused by international human rights organizations of terrible crimes, sitting in on classes, accompanying SOA students and their families to an upscale local mall, listening to coca farmers in Colombia and Bolivia, conversing with anti-SOA activists in the cramped office of the School of the Americas Watch-Gill exposes the School’s institutionalization of state-sponsored violence, the havoc it has wrought in Latin America, and the strategies used by activists seeking to curtail it.

Based on her unprecedented level of access to the School of the Americas, Gill describes the School’s mission and training methods and reveals how its students, alumni, and officers perceive themselves in relation to the dirty wars that have raged across Latin America. Assessing the School’s role in U.S. empire-building, she shows how Latin America’s brightest and most ambitious military officers are indoctrinated into a stark good-versus-evil worldview, seduced by consumer society and the “American dream,” and enlisted as proxies in Washington’s war against drugs and “subversion.”

One example, below, of these human rights violations is by the SOA graduate General Juan Orlando Zeped from El Salvador who took a course at the SOA in 1975 on “Urban Counterinsurgency Ops”; and in the 1969, the “Unnamed Course.” Below is some information about General Zeped’s tragic behavior:

Jesuit massacre, 1989: (Zeped) Planned the assassination of 6 Jesuit priests and covered-up the massacre, which also took the lives of the priests’ housekeeper and her teen-age daughter. (United Nations Truth Commission Report on El Salvador, 1993) Other war crimes, 1980’s: The Non-Governmental Human Rights Commission in El Salvador also cites Zeped for involvement in 210 summary executions, 64 tortures, and 110 illegal detentions. (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) Member of the “La Tandona” and held the rank of colonel and served as the Vice Minister of Defense at the time of the massacre. Prior to the massacre he publicly accused the UCA of being the center of operations for the FMLN and was present for the meetings where orders were given for the massacre. He was later promoted to the rank of general (Notorious Grads – School of the Americas).

Summary

Donald Trump should begin to resolve all this so-called refugee dilemma by first, letting these refugees into the United States; secondly, by closing the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in Columbus, Georgia that has trained and taught the military in these countries; and thirdly by ending this kind of ‘Low-Intensity Conflict’ training altogether in the United States and elsewhere.

We are also witnessing now an increased militarization of domestic police forces in the U.S., and there is significant organizing in the U.S. against this trend of police militarization and gun violence overall. This activism needs to also be extended as well to the countries throughout the world that are continuing to be victims of these U.S. ‘Low-Intensity Conflict’ policies and training. Closing down the ‘Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation’ would be a good first start.

After all, most of this domestic and international violence is being conducted thanks to American tax dollars and/or by the controlling corporate elite.

Martin Luther King was certainly correct when saying “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” by inferring that none of us are immune to these injustices.

Part II: Refugees, “Blaming the Victims”

Note: The transcribed 1995 interview below offers more of a background of the ‘School of the Americas’, otherwise known as the ‘School of the Assassins’. This interview offers a better understanding of what the refugees attempting to come to the United States have had to contend with thanks to the training and philosophy their own military have had in the United States.

Narrated by Susan Sarandon, it includes comments by the following: Representative Joseph Kennedy, Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Rufina Amaya (survivor of the El Mazote massacre), Representative Joseph Mokely, Vicky Imerman, Representative John Lewis, Unidentified El Salvadoran woman.

Heather Gray [hmcgray@earthlink.net]
December 15, 2018
Justice Initiative

School of the Americas: School of Assassins

“Here is the School of the Americas. It’s a combat school. Most of the courses revolve around what they call ‘counter-insurgency warfare.’ Who are the ‘insurgents?’ We have to ask that question. They are the poor. They are the people in Latin America who call for reform. They are the landless peasants who are hungry. They are health care workers, human rights advocates, labor organizers. They become the insurgents.

“They are seen as ‘the enemy.’ They are those who become the targets of those who learn their lessons at the School of the Americas.”

–Father Roy Bourgeois

Maryknoll World Productions (1995: 13 minutes)
Narrated by Susan Sarandon
Transcribed by Darrell G. Moen
Information Clearinghouse

TRANSCRIPT

Susan Sarandon: In the late afternoon of December 4, 1980, an unmarked grave was found in a field in El Salvador. When it was opened in the presence of the U.S. ambassador, it revealed the bodies of four women: Maryknoll Sisters Mara Clark and Eda Ford, Ursaline Sister Dorothy Kazel, and lay missionary Jean Donovan.

Of the five officers later found responsible for the rape and murder of these women, three were graduates of the United States Army School of the Americas. According to the Pentagon, the mission of the school is to train the armed forces of Latin America, promote military professionalism, foster cooperation among multinational military forces, and to expand the trainees’ knowledge of United States customs and traditions.

The School of the Americas originated in 1946 in Panama. Now, it is located on the grounds of Fort Benning, Georgia. The school teaches commando operations, sniper training, how to fire an M-16, and psychological warfare. Since no major declared war between Latin American countries has occurred in decades and the communist threat has vanished, why provide this kind of training?

Representative Joseph Kennedy: If you look at the course ranges that are offered to these individuals, they in fact are a dedicated way of teaching military leaders in foreign nations how to subvert their local communities.

Susan Sarandon: Since it opened, more than 55,000 military officials from 23 Latin American and Caribbean countries have trained at the school. About 2,000 students a year. As facts have emerged about the school and its graduates, it has drawn the attention of a growing number of human rights activists, such as Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois.

Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois: Just down the road here is the School of the Americas. It’s a combat school. Most of the courses revolve around what they call “counter-insurgency warfare.” Who are the “insurgents?” We have to ask that question. They are the poor. They are the people in Latin America who call for reform. They are the landless peasants who are hungry. They are health care workers, human rights advocates, labor organizers. They become the insurgents. They are seen as “the enemy.” They are those who become the targets of those who learn their lessons at the School of the Americas.

Susan Sarandon: What has been learned about the lessons taught at the school? In the 1980s, the civil war in El Salvador became a focal point for human rights activists throughout the world. Death squads operated freely, often killing 50 people a night. There were so many cases that on March 23, 1980, Archbishop Oscar Romero in San Salvador made a plea to the military leaders of his country.

Archbishop Oscar Romero: I would like to make an appeal in a special way to the men of the army. In the name of God, in the name of the suffering people whose laments rise to the heaven each day more tumultuous, I ask you, I order you in the name of God, stop the repression.

Susan Sarandon: While celebrating mass the next day, Archbishop Romero was assassinated. A number of years later, the National Security Archives in Washington D.C. made an important discovery when they obtained a copy of a declassified cable, Cape Dole.

Woman working at the National Security Archives: These two cables are both from the American Embassy in El Salvador.

One is from Dean Hinton, who was then Ambassador to El Salvador in 1981. And it discusses a meeting during which Roberto D’Aubuisson plans the murder of Archbishop Romero. During the meeting, there is described a lottery that the people who are attending the meeting hold to see who would draw the “right” to kill Romero himself.

Susan Sarandon: D’Aubuisson was trained at the School of the Americas. Also trained at the school were two of the three officers directly responsible for the assassination.

December 11, 1981: El Mazote, a small village in El Salvador…

Rufina Amaya (survivor of the El Mazote massacre): First, they forced everyone out of their houses and made us all lie face down in the street, both men and women. There were soldiers on both sides. Then, they moved away to see the women kneeling down on the ground to pray. They killed all of them. Not a single one of them survived, just me by the grace of God. I hid under a tree. When I heard the screams of the children, and I knew which ones were mine, they were crying, “Mommy, they’re killing us.”

Susan Sarandon: Over 900 men, women, and children were massacred. Virtually the entire population of the village and the area surrounding El Mazote. Out of 143 bodies identified in the laboratory, 131 were of children under the age of 12, including three infants under the age of three months. Ten of the 12 officers cited as responsible for the El Mazote massacre were graduates of the School of the Americas.

They were members of the Atlacatl Battalion, a part of the El Salvador Army.

November 16, 1989: San Salvador. Six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her 15-year-old daughter were slaughtered. To get the facts about this incident, a U.S. Congressional Investigation began, led by Representative Joseph Mokely.

Representative Joseph Mokely: I went down [to El Salvador]. I talked with the Embassy, talked with the military, talked with the unionists. I had meetings set up in very dingy places to talk with people who didn’t want to talk to me in public. And we gathered enough information that we pushed the investigation to the degree that it was concluded and the people who perpetrated the crime were found guilty. The killing was done by the Atlacatl Battalion which is the crack [best] battalion in that country. And these are the people, some of them had just returned from the United States, where they were taught a course on “human rights” amongst other things.

Susan Sarandon: Nineteen of the 26 officers implicated in the Jesuit murders were graduates of the school, including Yushi Renee Mendoza, the lieutenant in charge of the squad that killed the Jesuits and the two women. He attended a commando course a year before the massacre took place.

Representative Joseph Mokely: The Truth Commission to the U.N. substantiated everything that I had brought forward.

Susan Sarandon: The United Nations Truth Commission Report released on March 15, 1993, cited specific officers for committing atrocities during the El Salvador civil war. At School of the Americas Watch just outside Fort Benning, Georgia, Vicky Imerman matched the names cited in the U.N. Report with names in a United States Government document.

Vicky Imerman: What I did was I took these officers, all the officers listed in the report and I looked them up in list of graduates of the School of the Americas which we received through the Freedom of Information Act. What I found were 49 of the 60-some officers listed were graduates of the School of the Americas. These officers attended the school both before and after they committed atrocities. Francisco Del Cid, right here, was on the Commandant’s List a couple of years after he ordered the massacre of about 16 civilians and had their corpses burned.

Susan Sarandon: El Salvador is only part of the school’s story. In the entry area of one of its main buildings are photographs of those the school honors, its so-called Hall of Fame. At the top of the list, Hugo Banzer, former dictator of Bolivia, a graduate of the school. Some of the others similarly honored are the former dictators of Honduras, Ecuador, and Argentina. And generals from eight other Latin and Caribbean nations, many cited by human rights groups for involvement in human rights abuses in their own countries.

Among other graduates, Manuel Noriega, former president of Panama, currently in prison in the United States. Four of the five ranking Honduran officers who organized death squads in the 1980s as part of Battalion 316, are graduates. Half of the 250 Columbian officers cited for human rights abuses attended the school. The three highest ranking Peruvian officers convicted in February 1994 of murdering nine university students and a professor were all graduates. Also, the Peruvian army commander who brought out tanks to obstruct initial investigation of the murders.

During the dictatorship of the Somoza family [in Nicaragua], over 4,000 National Guard troops graduated from the school. Many of them later became known as the “Contras,” responsible for the deaths of thousands of Nicaraguan peasants in the 1980s. The general in charge of Argentina’s so-called “Dirty War” was a school graduate. During that internal conflict in the late-1970s and early-1980s, an estimated 30,000 people were tortured, disappeared, and murdered.

General Hector Gramajo of Guatemala was the featured speaker at the school’s graduation ceremonies in 1991. Human rights groups claim he is the architect of strategies that legalized military atrocities in Guatemala resulting in the death of over 200,000 men, women, and children.

Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois: As a Catholic priest, as a U.S. citizen, I really feel a responsibility to speak out against that because of this [school]. This does not lead to healing, it leads to death and suffering. In a way, this is a death machine. And this, I want to say, is very close to home because it’s in our backyard. It’s not out there in El Salvador. This is not in South Africa. We’re talking about a school of assassins right here in our backyard being supported and financed through our tax money. It’s being done in our names.

Susan Sarandon: $30 million of U.S. taxpayer money was recently spent to renovate school headquarters and these housing units for soldiers attending the school.

Vicky Imerman: It’s an outrage. It’s the use of our tax dollars, American tax dollars, for what I think your average American feels is a distinctly un-American purpose.

Susan Sarandon: On September 30, 1993, the School of the Americas was debated by Congress for the first time in its history. It happened when an amendment to the Defense Department budget was introduced by Congressman Joseph Kennedy.

Congressman Joseph Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, my amendment would reduce the Army operation and maintenance account by $2.9 million, the amount dedicated to running the Army School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia. The intent of this amendment is to close the school.

Representative John Lewis: Why should we continue to fund and condone military-inspired murder? Why should we continue to train thugs to kill their own people? Vote for peace. Vote for non-violence. Vote for harmony. Vote for the Kennedy Amendment.

Susan Sarandon: 174 voted in favor, 256 against.

Congressman Joseph Kennedy: We’re only 30 or 40 votes short of winning. That means that if people around the country hear about this and write their congressman, we can win. This is an issue that we can win on.

Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois: And what’s very important right now I feel is to let out voices be heard. Bishop Romero said it best before he was assassinated by someone who trained at the School of the Americas. He said, “We who have a voice, we have to speak for the voiceless.” I realize that we here in this country have a voice. We can speak without having to worry about being disappeared or tortured or being picked by [by the police or military]. We can speak, and I just hope that we can speak clearly and boldly on this issue.

Susan Sarandon: In April 1994, a group of human rights activists from around the country began a 40-day fast on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. They were there to make their case for shutting down the School of the Americas. The day before the fast ended, Congressman Kennedy joined them in a press conference.

Congressman Joseph Kennedy: The so-called Hall of Fame in Georgia is nothing more than a Hall of Shame for the people of our country. We, as a nation and as a people have a right and an obligation to say what we believe in in terms of how our dollars are going to be spent. What we are saying unequivocally is that we do not want to be associated with the kinds of individuals that are torturing, maiming, and killing innocent people throughout Latin America. That’s what this bill is all about and that’s what your commitment is all about, and we commit to working until this bill is passed.

Susan Sarandon: The next day, Congressman Kennedy’s second effort to shut the school was defeated by a smaller margin than his first one. 175 voted for his amendment, 217 against.

Unidentified El Salvadoran woman: I’m not very educated, but in my simple words I think that the only thing the School of the Americas has accomplished is the destruction of our countries in Latin America. Don’t give us any more of that military aid. It would be better to help the poor who are in need.

Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois: We need the voices of others, and we also need those letters to congressional leaders. To let them know that we will not allow them to use our money to run a school of assassins.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Part III: Refugees: “Blaming the Victims”

Note: When the ‘School of the Americas’ was changed to the ‘Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation’ (WHINSEC), there was hope the mission would have changed as well but the whole thing appears to be a hoax as assassins are still being exported from the school, as described in the article below. But here is a brief description of the name change:

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) is a United States Department of Defense Institute located at Fort Benning near Columbus, Georgia, created in the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act. It was formerly known as the US Army School of the Americas, but was renamed in 2000 so Congress could claim they’d shut S.O.A. down (see below under SOA Watch). (Wikipedia)

Heather Gray
December 15, 2018
Justice Initiative

The School Of The Americas Is Still Exporting Death Squads

South American militaries have been sending soldiers to the U.S. for “ethics” and “human rights” training for years, but history shows that many of these alumni go on to become notorious torturers and murderers, not defenders of peace. Ramona Wadib

April 22nd, 2015
By Ramona Wadib
Mint Press News

RABAT, Malta – In 2009, just a year before Sebastián Piñera became president of Chile, Michelle Bachelet approved the training of 211 Chilean recruits at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as the School of the Americas (SOA).

Between 1999 and 2010, Chilean governments sent a total of 1,205 recruits to the school, with Bachelet remaining at the helm of cooperation with the U.S.-based institute that has graduated scores of alumni involved in human rights violations under Chile’s dictatorship era from 1973 to 1990.

Despite the macabre reality inflicted upon Chileans during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship, the Concertación governments of the center-left, allegedly embarking upon a democratic future for Chile, retained ties with the school that produced torturers such as Miguel Krassnoff Martchenko, who, according to torture survivors, never concealed his identity while subjecting his victims to brutality.

Bachelet’s father, Gen. Alberto Bachelet, who was loyal to socialist president Salvador Allende, was tortured to death by the Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional (the National Intelligence Directorate, also known as DINA). Bachelet herself was detained and tortured by DINA, later fleeing into exile and returning back to Chile in 1979.

Under Bachelet’s first presidency (2006-2010), Chilean cooperation with the U.S. expanded, especially following her one-year stay at Fort Lesley J. McNair, in Washington, D.C., which provided the prelude to Bachelet’s military and surveillance investment.

Socialism quickly eroded into opportunism, with the country’s first female president emphasizing Pinochet’s legacy of oblivion as she extended diplomatic maneuvers to former DINA torturers, even praising generals allegedly involved in the torture that contributed to her father’s death.

Piñera also sent recruits to train at WHINSEC and furthered U.S. military collaboration in 2012 by opening a military training center at Fort Aguayo in Concón, Chile.

From the SOA to WHINSEC

Established in 1946 in Panama, the SOA was responsible for training over 64,000 South American soldiers, many of whom later became notorious torturers and murderers in death squads. According to former Panamanian President Jorge Illueca, the SOA was the “biggest base for destabilization in Latin America.”

Expelled from Panama in 1984, the SOA relocated to Fort Benning, Georgia, and was renamed WHINSEC in 2001, allowing for an apparent termination of the previous program through dissociation. In reality, however, WHINSEC retained its SOA foundations and the U.S. Department of Defense has shielded the institute from criticism and outcry with regard to the school’s historical link to human rights violations.

In its mission statement, WHINSEC claims to have been founded upon the Charter of the Organization of American States and pledges to “foster mutual knowledge, transparency, confidence, and cooperation among the participating nations and promote democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of U.S. customs and traditions.”

These values, according to WHINSEC’s website, are imparted through a three-lesson Ethics Program, as well as the Democracy and Human Rights Program – the latter dealing with “the universal prohibitions against torture, extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances.”

A far cry from protecting human rights

CIA and U.S. Army manuals detailing torture techniques translated into Spanish and utilized by the SOA are a far cry from anything containing human rights protections. Indeed, as SOA Watch explains, “These manuals advocated torture, extortion, blackmail and the targeting of civilian populations.”

The manuals, written in the 1950s and 1960s, “were distributed for use in countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Ecuador and Peru, and at the School of the Americas between 1987 and 1991.” Indeed, in-depth research and testimony from torture survivors relay more than just a depiction of torture practiced by SOA graduates in South America during dictatorship eras, such as Chile under Pinochet. Sadistic torture practiced upon detainees at Abu Ghraib is also reflective of the CIA torture manuals and torture previously carried out on detainees in South America.

Since 2000 and the renaming of the SOA, other crimes linked to SOA graduates have come to light.

Col. Byron Lima Estrada was convicted in June 2001 of murdering Guatemalan Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi following the publication of a report insisting the Guatemalan army was responsible for the murder of almost 200,000 people in the civil war that took place from 1960 to 1996.

Two SOA graduates, Venezuelan Army Commander in Chief Efrain Vasquez and Gen. Ramirez Poveda, were involved in the failed 2002 coup against President Hugo Chávez. According to SOA Watch, Otto Reich, then-assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, was “appointed as a WHINSEC board of visitor member to ‘oversee’ democracy and human rights curriculum, as well as operations at the school.” Reich was also deeply involved in the planning of the coup against Chávez.

In 1999, Bolivian Captain Filiman Rodriguez had been found responsible for the kidnapping and torture of Waldo Albarracin, director of the Bolivian Popular Assembly of Human Rights. In 2002, Rodriguez was accepted for a 49-week officer training course at WHINSEC.

In May 2014, a detailed report by the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Colombia-Europe-U.S. Human Rights Observatory highlighted U.S. military assistance to Colombia between 2000 and 2010. According to the report, which studies extrajudicial killings committed by the Colombian Army Brigades, U.S. intelligence assistance to Colombia “supported units that had adopted a strategy conducive to extrajudicial killings.”

Colombia requires its officers to undergo training at WHINSEC. The 2014 report states that out of 25 Colombian graduates from 2001 to 2003, 12 had either been charged with “a serious crime or commanded units whose members had reportedly committed multiple extrajudicial killings.”

It should be remembered that Plan Colombia, signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton, was translated into “moral and political support” by Colombian Gen. Mario Montoya. Between 2000 and 2010, U.S. assistance was considered a factor which influenced the staggering total of 5,673 extrajudicial killings – all of which occurred with impunity, lack of judicial mechanisms, rewards for the murders and the role of national leaders such as Montoya providing a safety net for those complicit in the atrocities.

As regards WHINSEC in Colombia, an academic on the Board of Visitors is quoted in the report as stating, “So if a student of mine leaves an ethics class and engages in criminal activity does that make me or my university liable for her activity?”

This attitude summarizes the lack of accountability surrounding WHINSEC. The dissociation from the school’s history under its original name – the SOA – is merely a premise for distancing the institution from the atrocities committed by its students and graduates.

History, however, tells a different story. While WHINSEC continues to emphasize what it describes as a commitment to human rights by citing a mere eight hours of instruction in the subject, research, such as the report on Colombia’s extrajudicial killings, reveals a reality that goes beyond the cosmetic reforms employed by the institution.