Castro: Where shall poor Third World countries find the basic resources needed to survive?

[Editorial Comment by Michael Deliz -- Fidel Castro, the spur on the heel of the United States, has recently written a series of articles questioning the newfound interest of the United States in ethanol, arguing that the use of food as fuel threatens the livelyhood of millions in porr countries. This is his latest communique on the issue released today through Granma International and gathered here through my Press TV RSS. The topic is a serious one and I believe it is important that critics of Castro's policies separate their personal hatred for the man from the message he is trying to deliver.]

Where Have All the Bees Gone?
By Fidel Castro

The Camp David meeting has just come to an end. All of us followed the press conference offered by the presidents of the United States and Brazil attentively, as we did the news surrounding the meeting and the opinions voiced in this connection.

Faced with demands related to customs duties and subsidies which protect and support U.S. ethanol production, Bush did not make the slightest concession to his Brazilian guest at Camp David.

President Lula attributed to this the rise in corn prices, which, according to his own statements, had gone up more than 85 percent.

Before these statements were made, the Washington Post had published an article by the Brazilian leader which expounded on the idea of transforming food into fuel.

It is not my intention to hurt Brazil or to meddle in the internal affairs of this great country. It was in effect in Rio de Janeiro, host of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, exactly 15 years ago, where I delivered a 7-minute speech vehemently denouncing the environmental dangers that menaced our species' survival. Bush Sr., then President of the United States, was present at that meeting and applauded my words out of courtesy; all other presidents there applauded, too.

No one at Camp David answered the fundamental question. Where are the more than 500 million tons of corn and other cereals which the United States, Europe and wealthy nations require to produce the gallons of ethanol that big companies in the United States and other countries demand in exchange for their voluminous investments going to be produced and who is going to supply them? Where are the soy, sunflower and rape seeds, whose essential oils these same, wealthy nations are to turn into fuel, going to be produced and who will produce them?

Some countries are food producers which export their surpluses. The balance of exporters and consumers had already become precarious before this and food prices had skyrocketed. In the interests of brevity, I shall limit myself to pointing out the following:

According to recent data, the five chief producers of corn, barley, sorghum, rye, millet and oats which Bush wants to transform into the raw material of ethanol production, supply the world market with 679 million tons of these products. Similarly, the five chief consumers, some of which also produce these grains, currently require 604 million annual tons of these products. The available surplus is less than 80 million tons of grain.

This colossal squandering of cereals destined to fuel production -and these estimates do not include data on oily seeds-shall serve to save rich countries less than 15 percent of the total annual consumption of their voracious automobiles.

At Camp David, Bush declared his intention of applying this formula around the world. This spells nothing other than the internationalization of genocide.

In his statements, published by the Washington Post on the eve of the Camp David meeting, the Brazilian president affirmed that less than one percent of Brazil's arable land was used to grow cane destined to ethanol production. This is nearly three times the land surface Cuba used when it produced nearly 10 million tons of sugar a year, before the crisis that befell the Soviet Union and the advent of climate changes.

Our country has been producing and exporting sugar for a longer time. First, on the basis of the work of slaves, whose numbers swelled to over 300 thousand in the first years of the 19th century and who turned the Spanish colony into the world's number one exporter. Nearly one hundred years later, at the beginning of the 20th century, when Cuba was a pseudo-republic which had been denied full independence by U.S. interventionism, it was immigrants from the West Indies and illiterate Cubans alone who bore the burden of growing and harvesting sugarcane on the island. The scourge of our people was the off-season, inherent to the cyclical nature of the harvest. Sugarcane plantations were the property of U.S. companies or powerful Cuban-born landowners. Cuba, thus, has more experience than anyone as regards the social impact of this crop.

This past Sunday, April 1, CNN televised the opinions of Brazilian experts who affirm that many lands destined to sugarcane have been purchased by wealthy Americans and Europeans.

As part of my reflections on the subject, published on March 29, I expounded on the impact climate change has had on Cuba and on other basic characteristics of our country's climate which contribute to this.

On our poor and anything but consumerist island, one would be unable to find enough workers to endure the rigors of the harvest and to care for the sugarcane plantations in the ever more intense heat, rains or droughts. When hurricanes lash the island, not even the best machines can harvest the bent-over and twisted canes. For centuries, the practice of burning sugarcane was unknown and no soil was compacted under the weight of complex machines and enormous trucks. Nitrogen, potassium and phosphate fertilizers, today extremely expensive, did not yet even exist, and the dry and wet months succeeded each other regularly. In modern agriculture, no high yields are possible without crop rotation methods.

On Sunday, April 1, the French Press Agency (AFP) published disquieting reports on the subject of climate change, which experts gathered by the United Nations already consider an inevitable phenomenon that will spell serious repercussions for the world in the coming decades.

According to a UN report to be approved next week in Brussels, climate change will have a significant impact on the American continent, generating more violent storms and heat waves and causing droughts, the extinction of some species and even hunger in Latin America.

The AFP report indicates that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forewarned that at the end of this century, every hemisphere will endure water-related problems and, if governments take no measures in this connection, rising temperatures could increase the risks of mortality, contamination, natural catastrophes and infectious diseases.

In Latin America, global warming is already melting glaciers in the Andes and threatening the Amazon forest, whose perimeter may slowly be turned into a savannah, the cable goes on to report.

Because a great part of its population lives near the coast, the United States is also vulnerable to extreme natural phenomena, as hurricane Katrina demonstrated in 2005.
According to AFP, this is the second of three IPCC reports which began to be published last February, following an initial scientific forecast which established the certainty of climate change.

This second 1400-page report which analyzes climate change in different sectors and regions, of which AFP has obtained a copy, considers that, even if radical measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that pollute the atmosphere are taken, the rise in temperatures around the planet in the coming decades is already unavoidable, concludes the French Press Agency.

As was to be expected, at the Camp David meeting, Dan Fisk, National Security advisor for the region, declared that "in the discussion on regional issues, [I expect] Cuba to come up () if there's anyone that knows how to create starvation, it's Fidel Castro. He also knows how not to do ethanol".

As I find myself obliged to respond to this gentleman, it is my duty to remind him that Cuba's infant mortality rate is lower than the United States'. All citizens -- this is beyond question -- enjoy free medical services. Everyone has access to education and no one is denied employment, in spite of nearly half a century of economic blockade and the attempts of U.S. governments to starve and economically asphyxiate the people of Cuba.

China would never devote a single ton of cereals or leguminous plants to the production of ethanol, and it is an economically prosperous nation which is breaking growth records, where all citizens earn the income they need to purchase essential consumer items, despite the fact that 48 percent of its population, which exceeds 1.3 billion, works in agriculture. On the contrary, it has set out to reduce energy consumption considerably by shutting down thousands of factories which consume unacceptable amounts of electricity and hydrocarbons. It imports many of the food products mentioned above from far-off corners of the world, transporting these over thousands of miles.

Scores of countries do not produce hydrocarbons and are unable to produce corn and other grains or oily seeds, for they do not even have enough water to meet their most basic needs.

At a meeting on ethanol production held in Buenos Aires by the Argentine Oil Industry Chamber and Cereals Exporters Association, Loek Boonekamp, the Dutch head of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)'s commercial and marketing division, told the press that governments are very much enthused about this process but that they should objectively consider whether ethanol ought to be given such resolute support.

According to Boonekamp, the United States is the only country where ethanol can be profitable and, without subsidies, no other country can make it viable.

According to the report, Boonekamp insists that ethanol is not manna from Heaven and that we should not blindly commit to developing this process.

Today, developed countries are pushing to have fossil fuels mixed with biofuels at around five percent and this is already affecting agricultural prices. If this figure went up to 10 percent, 30 percent of the United States' cultivated surface and 50 percent of Europe's would be required. That is the reason Boonekamp asks himself whether the process is sustainable, as an increase in the demand for crops destined to ethanol production would generate higher and less stable prices.

Protectionist measures are today at 54 cents per gallon and real subsidies reach far higher figures.

Applying the simple arithmetic we learned in high school, we could show how, by simply replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones, as I explained in my previous reflections, millions and millions of dollars in investment and energy could be saved, without the need to use a single acre of farming land.

In the meantime, we are receiving news from Washington, through the AP, reporting that the mysterious disappearance of millions of bees throughout the United States has edged beekeepers to the brink of a nervous breakdown and is even cause for concern in Congress, which will discuss this Thursday the critical situation facing this insect, essential to the agricultural sector. According to the report, the first disquieting signs of this enigma became evident shortly after Christmas in the state of Florida, when beekeepers discovered that their bees had vanished without a trace. Since then, the syndrome which experts have christened as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has reduced the country's swarms by 25 percent.

Daniel Weaver, president of the U.S. Beekeepers Association, stated that more than half a million colonies, each with a population of nearly 50 thousand bees, had been lost. He added that the syndrome has struck 30 of the country's 50 states. What is curious about the phenomenon is that, in many cases, the mortal remains of the bees are not found.

According to a study conducted by Cornell University, these industrious insects pollinate crops valued at anywhere from 12 to 14 billion dollars.

Scientists are entertaining all kinds of hypotheses, including the theory that a pesticide may have caused the bees' neurological damage and altered their sense of orientation. Others lay the blame on the drought and even mobile phone waves, but, what's certain is that no one knows exactly what has unleashed this syndrome.

The worst may be yet to come: a new war aimed at securing gas and oil supplies that can take humanity to the brink of total annihilation.

Invoking intelligence sources, Russian newspapers have reported that a war on Iran has been in the works for over three years now, since the day the government of the United States resolved to occupy Iraq completely, unleashing a seemingly endless and despicable civil war.

All the while, the government of the United States devotes hundreds of billions to the development of highly sophisticated technologies, as those which employ micro-electronic systems or new nuclear weapons which can strike their targets an hour following the order to attack.

The United States brazenly turns a deaf ear to world public opinion, which is against all kinds of nuclear weapons.

Razing all of Iran's factories to the ground is a relatively easy task, from the technical point of view, for a powerful country like the United States. The difficult task may come later, if a new war were to be unleashed against another Muslim faith which deserves our utmost respect, as do all other religions of the Near, Middle or Far East, predating or postdating Christianity.

The arrest of English soldiers at Iran's territorial waters recalls the nearly identical act of provocation of the so-called "Brothers to the Rescue" who, ignoring President Clinton's orders advanced over our country's territorial waters. Cuba's absolutely legitimate and defensive action gave the United States a pretext to promulgate the well-known Helms-Burton Act, which encroaches upon the sovereignty of other nations besides Cuba. The powerful media have consigned that episode to oblivion. No few people attribute the price of oil, at nearly 70 dollars a gallon as of Monday, to fears of a possible invasion of Iran.

Where shall poor Third World countries find the basic resources needed to survive?

I am not exaggerating or using overblown language. I am confining myself to the facts.

As can be seen, the polyhedron has many dark faces.

(courtesy Granma translated by www.Counterpunch.org)

PDM/HAR
Source: Press TV

Analysis: Is China good for Latin America?

Recently, I found my fortune telling 8 ball, the one you shake and tells you the future. Its a toy, made in China and produced for the American market. Over the last few decades China has increasingly produced consumer goods for markets in the United States, leading to its emergence as an economic powerhouse. This long lost toy spurred my thinking, given the challenge China presents the United States, is China good for Latin America?

Within the past 5 years Chinese influence has grown in the region to the benefit of the people and commerce of Latin America easily outpacing the immediate negative effects some sectors of the economy may face from direct Chinese competition.

It is useful to remember that China is still a developing nation still seeking to balance its economic potential with its domestic scarcity in many areas including civil liberties, entrepreneurship, and basic necessities outside the urban cores. However it is catching up quickly and reassuringly with the OECD countries and in fact carries more economic weight than most. So to regard China as a "developing country" is often a misrepresentation that will increasingly seem ill fitting.

This "developing" status is nevertheless important because it still places China as a direct competitor to Latin America. However, with cheaper labor and greater resources than any individual Latin American nation, China is quickly reaching the sweet spot in development, the window in time in which domestic production and domestic consumerism represent the greatest economic safety net. This same window in time was experienced by the United States and Europe in the post-WWII era. However once consumerism expands beyond the means of the domestic capacity to produce a nation begins to transfer wealth out to foreign markets, much like the United States, beginning in the 1980s through today.

Latin America never having successfully industrialized has developed a consumerist's appetite without ever having developed the capacity for production to meet the domestic demands. The production supply has always been met primarily by the United States, and running at a far second Europe, then Asia. But the recent trends in the political and economic understanding of the situation, represented most pointedly by the rise of left-leaning governments, has begun to shift the focus of policy making in different ways specially through diversification of what Latin America sees as its consumer markets.

China, which today sits on the world stage with an unparalleled budget surplus, is a much sought after consumer market for Latin America and China for its part is willing to share in a trade relationship. The lack of a manufacturing base in Latin America however still places the region in the role of a support player trading its unfinished, unrefined resources for Chinese manufactured products. This is not dissimilar to the region's existing relationship with the United States but by including China as a consumer of its resources, thereby diversifying its market, Latin America can better enhance its position against both.

Dependence, the dirty word every Latin American nation, excluding Cuba, lives by but hates to admit, is the very system of economic bondage that the recent leftist surge in Latin America seeks to deconstruct and eradicate. The problem is that Latin American dependence upon the United States is not merely economic, but by default political in its implications. Pinned under the American sphere of influence and lacking for breath, the only recourse left is to thrust against that overriding power and establish a proper living space that allows for diplomatic, economic, and social communication with the rest of the world.

China, as an emerging global power stands as a good samaritan to the Latin American struggle by continuously nudging the weight of the American Empire and leveraging it with Chinese production and investment capabilities. The trick however is not to replace one empire with another, but to play the two as opposing forces which will increasingly repell each other and allow for a gap through which the sun will finally reach Latin American soil.

This will certainly strike many as a Machiavellian interpretation, but que sera sera. For the past 100 years Latin America has been the recipient of Machiavellian politics directed from Washington, it can now hardly be blamed for having learned the game from the masters. If Latin America can reach a stable and consistently integrational process towards a Latin American Union it will enable itself to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the quickly developing U.S./China rift.

Perhaps the greatest advantage for Latin America is the USA's dismissive attitude to the idea of regional integration in Latin America which belies a far more dangerous belief in American superiority. That self confidence is blinding the US to the developments of the region which are set to focus on political self-determination.

First, however, the shadow of colonialism must lift or be lifted from the minds of Latin American communities in which many still see themselves as culturally inferior perhaps even genetically inferior to their northern neighbor. Its a shadow of self hatred and self doubt that has stripped the region of its possible future and one that Simon Bolivar would be ashamed of today. China in this aspect has something to teach Latin America. While the model of self love presented by the United States relies heavily upon the teaching of selective history and a reliance on military might, China's recent rise is preceded by an effort of the government to instill pride through largely scientific accomplishment, not the least of which is China's pursuit of space exploration.

In the meantime, while North American investments have looked to the Far East, Chinese investments are looking increasingly to Latin America. At this moment it seems that China's self interests include weakening American power and influence in throughout Latin America and by doing so Latin America regains sovereignty in the world stage. The emphasis on economic development promoted by Chinese policies in the region have thus far proved much more effective than the failed Soviet strategy to promote an ideological shift away from the United States.

In general, I would argue that playing ball with China will set the stage for a future power play by Latin America in global politics. Surely time will tell whether or not this will come about, but my fortune telling 8 ball has been shaken and 'all signs point to yes'.

by Michael Deliz

In Dominican Republic, Worries About Free Trade

CAFTA illustration ("It'll all be mine") by Tito Chamorro L.

Despite the assurances by the Dominican government of DR-CAFTA's success over the last three months, Manuel Diez, the President of the Dominican Industries Association (AIRD) has some doubts. In a recent press conference covered by Dominican Today Mr. Diez expressed his concern that the anti-dumping law enacted by the legislators of the country has yet to be implemented after five years of its passing.

[Manuel Diez] said that as the tariffs are eliminated within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Central America (Dr-Cafta), many companies devoid of legality seek to conduct dumping to takeover markets jeopardizing local companies.

Diez' fears are sound and rest upon the experience of other Free Trade signatories who have seem a marked drop in manufacturing and industrial production due to a flood of surplus American products.

New Book/Same Conclusions: Puerto Rico is a Colony

Richard Thornburgh discusses his new book (Photo by El Nuevo Dia)

El Futuro de Puerto Rico, Richard Thornburgh's new book, adds nothing to the status debate, except to further debunk the ELA/Commonwealth status of the island as a mere "impermanent colonial status". I do not mean to step on Mr. Thornburgh's masterpiece here, but give me a minute to put on some boots.

Richard Thornburgh, former Governor of Pennsylvania and ex-Secretary of Justice for the United States, presents his expertise on the matter and it turns out to be lacking. Mr. Thornburgh argues that the commonwealth system is a false status that has proven itself as veil of colonialism. This is such an obvious statement that even the pro-commonwealth PPD party agrees with it. In fact you will be hard pressed to find a single Puerto Rican who likes the current status. Of course the book's authority is only heightened by a introduction by former President George Bush, surely a recognized expert on the issue, who just so happened to never step foot on the island.

Perhaps the more intellectually insulting part of the book is its subtitle "Time to Decide". Yeah, thanks for the tip. I mean we didn't know it was time yet, wow.

This is essentially a pro-statehood book which ignores independence as an option and promotes greater integration into statehood as a means to correct the sins of the past, by simply creating whole new ones. Its a book meant for one audience only, Americans who would oppose statehood, and those people are not going to pick up any book about Puerto Rico. Those Puerto Ricans who look to this book as a source will only find a slanted American viewpoint that is ultimately irrelevant to the decisions that lay ahead for us Puerto Ricans.

The fact that independence for Puerto Rico is ignored as a solution is not an innocent mistake. It is either a purposeful attempt to narrow the debate, or a subconscious indication of the authors belief in Puerto Rican inferiority. Either way, without an honest presentation of the matter the book just serves as an excuse to kill trees for its printing.

by Michael Deliz

Again, The New York Times Just Doesn't Get It

Today's New York Times article entitled "High Stakes: Chávez Plays the Oil Card" is yet another example of how out of touch the New York Times is with what is happening in Latin America. The article not only misrepresents the policies of Hugo Chavez but even refuses to accept the mere possibility that what Chavez is doing is exactly what every Latin American country should be doing, taking care of their people first.

First and foremost is the depiction of Chavez as "erratic" in his policy making. If anything he is consistent to the letter. As he promised to nationalize the resources of Venezuela, he has done. As he promised to turn the revenue into domestic social programs, he has done. And as he promised to reach out diplomatically to other nations whom have been forgotten by Europe and the United States, he has done so as well. If there is a truism to be said of Chavez is that his policies have remained in focus with his promises.

Second, the article's doom and gloom predictions are exploitative and misleading. Nationalization of Venezuela's resources does not mean that foreign corporations will be forced to leave the country, it simply means that the government will take a cut of the revenue. This is not by any means threatening to those corporations it merely means that next time that Exxon reports 10.7 billion dollar profit in a single quarter, Venezuela will take its cut first. The stupidity here is in not asking why the United States hasn't done the same thing. Venezuela sits on what could be the richest deposit of oil anywhere in the world, if American companies are not willing to share those riches with the people of Venezuela, you can bet Chinese, Russian, and Brazilian companies will.

Third, The price of oil will continue to climb, there might be slight dips in the price periodically but every expert in the field will agree that oil prices will never go back down to the levels of the 1970s or even the 1990's. Oil prices will climb as sure as the sun will shine tomorrow. That means that who ever controls the flow today, will only reap greater profits tomorrow.

Also the article points to the sale of two refineries in Texas and Louisiana as proof of an intention to cut off the oil supply to the United States. Bit of a leap there perhaps? Chavez is currently building at least two other refineries in the Caribbean and another in Nicaragua, as well as in Venezuela itself. Could it be that instead these are cost cutting measures to save money using labor cheaper than that found in the United States? Maybe, maybe not. But there are definitely no plans by Chavez to cutoff his cash cow, the U.S. See this is a transfer of wealth from the Richest nation to a poor one. There is no plan to cut off the oil, just a plan to maximize the wealth transfer.

Finally, as I stated before, this is what every Latin American nation should do, and what those with the proper leadership are already doing. Nationalizing their resources for the benefit of their peoples. The fact that the United States government has a history of disregarding the wishes of the Latin American people, and becomes belligerent at the sight of its slave nations rebelling against its authority doesn't make it what Latin America, and specifically Venezuela, are doing, wrong or erratic. If anything, it smells of righteousness.

by Michael Deliz

May 1st 2007 WE STAND AGAINST INJUSTICE

If you live in the United States there is probably a group nearby Preparing for May 1, 2007. Every American should be in attendance. Because we are all immigrants. Check out this site for more updates or go to: http://maydaymovement.blogspot.com/2007/03/u.html

Dominican Republic "will become a sort of Puerto Rico" under CAFTA

Dr. Emilio Cordero Michel, Vice President of the Dominican Academy of Sciences and a respected economist and historian, warned attendees of a panel discussion held on March 17, 2007 that the Dominican Republic would quickly find itself "with poverty and problems that we will never be able to solve”.

The warning came amid wild speculation by the country's President who hailed the the signing of the CAFTA agreement as the beginning of a road to competitiveness with the rest of the world. Dr. Cordero Michele however believes that CAFTA will only turn the Dominican Republic into another Puerto Rico. He said, "This means we will become a sort of Puerto Rico with a flag, coat of arms and anthem, but a sub-colony, producing only Free Trade Zones".

The Dominican Customs Agency announced on April 8th that although custom collections were on the rise thanks to CAFTA, there was a total income loss of RD$34,206,434.16 (that's in Dominican Pesos)for the first quarter of 2007(January -March) due to the loss of import tariffs.

Sources: Dominican Today [1] [2]

Rally for Immigrant's Rights in LA

(From BBC)
Thousands of people have demonstrated in Los Angeles to demand citizenship rights for illegal immigrants.

A 15,000-strong crowd carrying American flags and holding signs saying "Amnesty Now" paraded through the streets towards City Hall.

Many people were protesting against a leaked White House plan under which illegal migrants would be charged hefty sums for work visas and residency.

There are believed to be about 12 million illegal immigrants in the US.

Last year President George W Bush backed a Senate proposal on immigration that included a guest worker programme offering illegal workers a "path to citizenship".

But the plan has come to nothing amid opposition from Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives.

'Don't have the money'

Correspondents say the latest proposals - leaked last week - are far more conservative. They have, campaigners say, left illegal workers disappointed.

"People are really upset," said Juan Jose Gutierrez of the LA-based Latino Movement USA.

"For years, the president spoke in no uncertain terms about supporting immigration reform... then this kind of plan comes out and people are so frustrated," he said.

(Click HERE for the full report)

Brazil Gives Bush a Great Welcome

Great video published on youtube by Dave Harris an American in Brazil. Great job Dave, hope to see more of your work.


Recorded during G.W. Bush's visit to Brazil on March 8 during his Latin Amarican tour, which did not stop at Puerto Rico, by the way.

Press Consensus: Castro is Right.

After a period of relative silence Fidel Castro came back unto the international scene to repudiate American President George W. Bush's initiative to develop ethanol from corn. Castro's argument that the American plan endangers the world's food supply was at first criticized as sour grapes, but apparently after a brief period of reflection leading newspapers have begun nodding in agreement to Fidel Castro's article in Cuba's state news agency Granma:

America's ethanol drive - The Economist

Castro denounces ethanol - Foreign Policy

Surprise! Chavez and Castro may be (partly) right - Belleville News-Democrat

Castro Emerges to Slam Bush on Ethanol. Is He Right? - Wired News

Each editorial takes a jab at Castor and a glancing blow at Chavez, but they reach the same conclusion corn based ethanol could affect the world's oil supply, and that merits discussion.

Acevedo: Puerto Ricans in U.S. Should Have a Voice

Aníbal Acevedo-Vilá Speaking at the 2005 NCLR Conference

Puerto Rico's Governor, Anibal Acevedo, today called for open and public discussions about the status of Puerto Rico and the proposals under discussion in Congress Through out the U.S. According to the Governor's spokesperson, Eduardo Bhatia, the communities of New York, Chicago, and Orlando should be included in the discussion along with Puerto Rico itself through public hearings held in each city.

The Governor's opinion should add another dimension to the ongoing debate about whether Puerto Ricans in the United States should have a vote in the proposed referendums to decide a permanent status for the island. With about 3 to 4 million Puerto Ricans living in the United States and 4 million living on the island, the Puerto Rican diaspora could easily amount to close to 50% of the total eligible electorate, though no actual data has yet to be made available.

Should Puerto Ricans outside of the island be able to help determine the island's future? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Venezuela, assuming chair of OAS Permanent Council

Venezuela’s Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States (OAS), Ambassador Jorge Valero, assumed the chairmanship of the Permanent Council and talked about the need for deeper conceptual and institutional change within the hemispheric organization.
The OAS should focus “not just on the concerns of governments but should also reflect the interests of the peoples of the Americas in their quest for justice, equality and solidarity,” declared Valero, as he accepted the gavel to succeed Uruguay’s Ambassador María del Lujan Flores in the Permanent Council chair.

Pledging that over the next three months he would lead the Council “with a spirit of broad-mindedness, to foster the broadest possible debate,” Valero said the OAS should faithfully reflect progressive changes taking place across the hemisphere. He argued that it should therefore reorient its debate “toward a comprehensive, multidimensional approach to democracy.”

Meanwhile, the OAS Assistant Secretary General, Ambassador Albert R. Ramdin, underscored the importance of this chairmanship in the lead-up to the next General Assembly session, which will be held in Panama City in June. Over the next few weeks, he said, the Permanent Council will be seeking consensus on the resolutions and issues that will be up for consideration and decision by the member states’ foreign ministers. “We are convinced that Venezuela’s leadership will facilitate the adoption of a consensus document on the main theme of the General Assembly—Energy for Sustainable Development,” Ramdin said.

During the hand-over ceremony, Valero also touched on the General Assembly, saying that “integration and cooperation around energy—based on principles of solidarity, collaboration and reciprocity that promote fair, just and universal access to energy—could be used as a vehicle to combat poverty, deliver sustainable economic and social development to the peoples of the Americas, and build just and equitable societies.”

A number of member state delegates were also on hand for the ceremony, which was held at OAS headquarters in Washington.

Source: MercoPress

ProEnglish says No english, No statehood, Gingrich agrees.

English-only advocates have stated their opposition to House Bill H.R.900 proposed by Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner and sponsored by New York Representative Jose Serrano. Without a guarantee that Puerto Rico's govenment and courts will conduct business in english, there can be no statehood for the island the group proclaims.

ProEnglish opposes this bill for two reasons:

First there is no provision in the bill that requires Puerto Rico to adopt English as the language of its government, which ProEnglish believes must be a pre-requisite for any territory or commonwealth to be admitted as a state.

Second, the two stage plebiscite is a carefully contrived effort to get a majority of Puerto Ricans to vote in favor of statehood, something Puerto Ricans have repeated refused to do despite several attempts in the past. It is therefore undemocratic, manipulative, and an insult to the citizens of Puerto Rico.

The attempt by the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner, Luis Fortuño, who is himself a pro-statehood advocate, to bring about a vote for statehood in the island will ultimately prove to be futile as racialist organizations like Pro-English who see every foreigner as a threat will stop at nothing to defeat the measure in the halls of Congress. And we should remember that Newt Gingrich, who in this press conference pictured above called Spanish the language of the ghetto, was probably practicing self-retraint with his true opinions.

As a Puerto Rican, I support independence for Puerto Rico. And I believe it is important that Puerto Ricans hear how unwanted Puerto Ricans are in the United States, and I wonder how Luis Fortuño will like his name without the "ñ"

María Julia Hernández, Human Rights Leader Dies

María Julia Hernández, often called the mother of El Salvador's human rights movement died on on Friday from a heart attack at the age of 68. For about thirty years Hernandez worked to bring forward the truth of the Salvadoran Government's complicity in the deaths of tens of thousands killed by way of roving death squads during the country's civil war. May she rest in peace and may her work live on.