Carta de Constantine C. Menges a
Olavo de Carvalho
El día 17 de septiembre del
2002, al leer en el forum http://www.brazzil.com algunos comentarios
insoportablemente tendenciosos al artículo del Dr. Constantine C. Menges,
“Blocking a New Axis of Evil”, resolví intervenir en el debate, enviando al
editor de la página algunas líneas de respuesta a los exaltados petistas que
daban allí un show de patriotismo fingido. Pocas horas después recibí del
editor un simpático e-mail, que me informaba sobre su intención de publicar mi
texto y, de paso, me daba la dirección electrónica del Dr. Menges, a quien
decidí entonces enviar una copia de mi mensaje.
Ayer, 19 de septiembre, el Dr.
Menges me envió una respuesta, acompañada de cuatro anexos, que reproduzco a
continuación. -- O. de C.
Mr. de Carvalho,
Thank you very much for sending me
your thoughtful and eloquent analysis of the current political situation in
I thought you would find it
interesting to have the text of my analysis on
Very important is Lula's statement
on September 14 opposing
With all good wishes.
Dr. C. Menges
Anexo 1
Briefing Note[ii]
September 1999
During his coming visit to the
During his time as a military cadet,
Chavez came to believe that he should lead a radical military regime which
would transform
Having been given amnesty in 1995,
Chavez began to focus his efforts on the political process. He organized the
Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement, reestablished his alliance with the Venezuelan
Marxist-Leninist movements and began working with the communist guerrillas of
The first tests for Chavez's new
movement were the November 1998 elections for the National Congress and for 22
state governorships. Contrary to their hopes, the Chavez movement won only 37%
of the seats in the Congress and only 8 of the 22 governorships. Yet, as they
prepared for the December 1998 presidential elections, the two long established
democratic parties were demoralized by public disaffection with them as a
result of corruption in government. Only late in the campaign did they endorse
the candidacy of Governor Salas Romer, who led a new democratic movement,
Projecto
Since becoming president on
Chavez called a referendum in April
1999 to decide whether a Constituent Assembly should be convened to write a new
constitution for
In August 1999, the Constituent
Assembly acted to neutralize and usurp the authority of the existing judiciary
and of
If Chavez consolidates his
dictatorship the people of
A key Chavez advisor defines the
U.S. Europe and Israel as the "white Judaic North," oppressing the
poor of the world and requiring the Chavez regime to ally itself with the
anti-U.S. oil producers--Libya, Iran, Iraq and communist China. Chavez has
already coordinated closely with Iran to promote higher oil prices, he has
invited Saddam Hussein to the OPEC summit in Venezuela and he has agreed to
provide Venezuelan oil to Cuba at a steep discount. Chavez will seek ever
higher oil prices both to punish the "North" and to provide his and
other radical regimes with more money to oppose it and help
"liberate" those they define as oppressed.
In April 1999 Senator Timiteo
Zambrano, from one of Venezuela's two major democratic parties, wrote the
Organization of American States (OAS) stating that Chavez was "against the
democratic system" and asking for international help to preserve
democracy. In 1991 the OAS had unanimously agreed that in the event of a threat
to political democracy the members of the OAS would take preventive actions. It
is very late but not yet too late. President Clinton has a last chance to work
with democratic allies to prevent the consolidation of a Chavez dictatorship-a
major new threat to freedom, peace and national security.
Anexo 2
Venezuela: the
truth about Chavez
The Washington
Times
April 28, 2002
The recent events in Venzuela were
dramatic. Yet much of the discussion in the United States began and ended with
the fact that President Hugo Chavez had been “democratically elected” in 1998. Ignored
were his record of anti-democratic governance since taking office in 1999 , his
alliances with terrorist partner states like Cuba, Iraq and Iran, his
sponsorship of state terrorism and the implications of these facts for the
future.
On April 9-10,2002 hundreds of
thousands of peaceful protesters from pro-democratic political parties, labor
unions, business and civic associations, walked in the Venezuelan capital to
show their opposition the latest anti-democratic actions of Chavez. In
response, Chavez mobilized his para-military armed thugs, the “Bolivarian
Circles” and they were televised shooting the unarmed protestors killing and
wounding more than 100 while others sped around Caracas on motorcycles looking
for journalists to attack. Chavez also sent armed supporters to close down
television reporting of the protests.
When Chavez ordered the military to
use force to halt the peaceful demonstrations, thirty senior officers refused
to obey. They said Chavez had violated “democratic principles” and that they
would no longer recognize his authority because they wanted to “avoid more
spilling of blood and the destruction of our brave people and their
institutions”. From their point of view, those military leaders were joining a
broad based civic movement calling for the end of the emerging Chavez
dictatorship, just as had occurred in 1945 and again in 1958 when a
civil-military coalition removed a dictator and Venezuela began its four
decades as a political democracy.
Understanding the reasons all the
pro-democratic groups in Venezuela oppose Chavez requires a brief review of his
anti-democratic actions which have been mostly ignored outside of Venezuela. Chavez
moved Venezuela through four principal phases. First, the use of illegal and
pseudo-legal means to invalidate the existing constitution (in force since
1961) and have a new constitution written by his supporters (1999). Second,
under the new constitution, having himself eligible to be president for two six
year terms and obtaining a unicameral legislature that would give him
predominant federal powers. Third, beginning his “social revolution” by using
presidential decrees in the fall of 2001 to begin confiscating private
property. The fourth phase, begun in January 2002 when Chavez established the
Political Command of the Revolution under his direct control which would
supervise the “Bolivarian Circles”, an armed militia of Chavez supporters who
would intimidate, preempt and if necessary seek to defeat the political/civic
opposition and the Venezuelan armed forces. This was intended to assure his
indefinite continuation in power.
In April 1999 Chavez called a
referendum to decide whether a Constituent Assembly should be convened to write
a new constitution for Venezuela. The major democratic parties did not feel
there was any need for a new constitution, but demoralized and intimidated,
they made virtually no effort to contest the issue. The lack of citizen support
for a new constitution was seen in the fact that only 39% of Venezuelans voted.
Venezuelans voted and passed the referendum.
In July 1999, elections were held to
choose the delegates for the Constituent Assembly. Chavez supporters were
confident, active and intimidating while those representing the pro-democratic
parties were fearful and only beginning to return to political activity. The
groups opposing Chavez received 38% of the votes compared to the 42% for the
pro-Chavez slates of candidates. Nevertheless,
by a fraudulent process the pro-Chavez 42% of the votes was translated into 93%
of the seats in the Constituent Assembly while the opposition parties received
only 7% of the seats.
In August 1999, the Chavez-dominated Constituent
Assembly assembled and immediately took actions to neutralize and usurp the
authority of the existing judiciary and of Venezuela's elected Congress, where
Chavez supporters had won only 20% of the seats.
On August 25, 1999 the Constituent Assembly, in
violation of the existing constitution, declared a "legislative
emergency" and forbade the elected national Congress from meeting. From
that time on, the elected national Congress was sidelined; this marked the
Chavez regime in complete violation of the Venezuelan constitution and as
antidemocratic. Democratic political leaders in Venezuela appealed to the OAS,
the Clinton Administration, and other countries to speak out against these
unconstitutional actions but heard only silence.
Under the new constitution, Chavez obtained
reelection as president and a new legislature where his supporters held 60% of
the seats, but the democratic opposition parties held the rest, a sign of their
revival. But independent observers such as the Catholic Church questioned the
accuracy of the vote counting process for both the presidential and legislative
elections.
Chavez now moved to use pseudo-electoral means to
put his loyalists in control of the powerful independent labor unions grouped
together in the Venezuelan Confederation of Labor (CTV). It has a long history
of supporting political democracy, opposing dictatorship, and a well organized
membership of more than one million strong. On December 3, 2000, Chavez held a
national referendum on whether all the union leaders should be dismissed from
their positions. With turnout only 23 percent, the referendum passed. Labor
leaders claimed the referendum violated the Chavez 1999 constitution,
provisions of which protect union leaders from state intervention.
Nevertheless, the CTV leadership was required to resign and run in new union
elections for office where 80% of previous CTV leaders were reelected. Having
escaped the Chavez takeover attempt, the CTV labor unions have been all the
more vigorous in their campaign for the restoration of democracy and opposition
to Chavez. They have called a major demonstration for May 1st, 2002.
Actions against journalists have been systematic
but hidden. They include anonymous threats, ostensibly criminal attacks, and -
perhaps most intended to intimidate- sending journalists verbatim transcripts
of their conversations with democratic opposition leaders whether on their cell
phones, in their offices, or elsewhere. This disguised repression of a free
press will undoubtedly increase.
Internationally, Chavez has established alliances
with Cuba, Iraq and Iran, all state supporters of terrorism. He has provided
the Castro regime with free oil, probably worth two billion dollars, and worked
closely with Castro in support of the communist guerillas in Colombia and other
anti-democratic movements attacking nearby countries. Even the Clinton
Administration departed from its silence on Chavez, stating in December 2000
that he was supporting “violent movements opposing the government of Colombia,
Bolivia and Ecuador”. There has been an increasing flow of credible evidence,
including from Chavez’s former chief of intelligence, that the Chavez regime
has been and remains a state supporter of terrorism through its aid for the
Colombian communist guerillas and other radical groups. If and as Chavez
consolidates his control in the coming weeks and months, his actions will threaten
democracy in Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Brazil.
Anexo 3
Lula critica la adhesión del
país al tratado que restringe el uso de armas nucleares
Adriana Vasconcelos y Maiá Menezes
O Globo On Line
Sábado, 14 de septiembre de 2002
Ante una platea de oficiales de las Fuerzas
Armadas y de embajadores, el candidato del PT a la Presidencia, Luiz Inácio
Lula da Silva, criticó ayer la adhesión de Brasil al Tratado de
No-Proliferación de Armas Nucleares. Cuando el embajador Marcos Camilo Curtis le
preguntó si consideraba el tratado nocivo para los intereses nacionales y para
la soberanía brasileña, Lula respondió:
— Voy a ser muy franco, porque dentro del Congreso
hay una gran mayoría de parlamentarios pacifistas que considera que Brasil
debería adherirse al tratado. Pero, como ciudadano, me imagino que eso sólo
tendría sentido si todos los países que ya poseen (armas nucleares) renunciasen
a las suyas. Porque si un ciudadano me pide que me desarme, que yo me quede con
un tirabique mientras él me ataca con un cañón, ¿qué ventaja tengo?
Lula destacó que aún existen tres formas de que un
país sea respetado en el mundo: teniendo una economía sólida, mucha tecnología
o siendo fuerte militarmente. Según su opinión, el único país que posee
actualmente una estrategia a largo plazo es Estados Unidos, precisamente porque
detenta una hegemonía económica, tecnológica y militar:
— Por eso nos vemos obligados a asistir en TV al
discurso de (George W.) Bush que ayer intentaba encontrar un motivo para
invadir Iraq.
En la entrevista después de la conferencia del
Club de la Aeronáutica, Lula aclaró su opinión con relación al tratado. El
candidato dijo que la falta de una cláusula que impida a los países
desarrollados construir armas nucleares ha acabado por colocar a Brasil y a los
países subdesarrollados en situación de desventaja. Pero Lula afirmó que no hay
cómo revisar el acuerdo..
— No es justo que los países desarrollados, que
tienen la tecnología de las armas nucleares, no desactiven las suyas y exijan
que los demás no las tengan. Entonces todos los países en desarrollo nos
quedamos con el tirabique y ellos con la bomba atómica — afirmó, garantizando
que mantiene el pensamiento “paz y amor”.
Bolsonaro se queda impresionado
El discurso nacionalista de Lula sorprendió
incluso a los sectores más radicales del área militar. Después de oír al
candidato, el diputado Jair Bolsonaro (PPB-RJ), militar retirado, no dudó en
anticipar que el petista tendrá su voto en la segunda vuelta, en el caso de que
el candidato del Frente Laborista, Ciro Gomes, no llegue a ella. En su opinión,
el encuentro servió para disminuir las antiguas reticencias de la categoría al
petista:
— Me he quedado impresionado. Tenemos que olvidar
las cosas malas del pasado de ambos. No existe resentimiento por mi parte, ni
por la de ninguno de mis colegas de cuartel.
Paulo Delgado (PT-MG), vice-presidente de la
Comisión de Relaciones Internacionales y Defensa Nacional de la Cámara, se
sorprendió de lo que Lula dijo sobre el tratado.
— La fuerza de Brasil es su territorio continental
y su población. Con diez vecinos y 17 mil kilómetros de fronteras, es
preferible tener amigos a tener un arsenal. El pacifismo es una conquista
republicana — dijo.
Anexo 4
Serra en Rio de Janeiro: ‘Lula
está a favor de la bomba atómica’
Bernardo de la Peña y Adriana Vasconcelos
O Globo On Line
Miércoles, 18 de septiembre de 2002
Aunque dijo no estar preocupado con la posibilidad
de la victoria del candidato del PT, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, en la primera
vuelta, el candidato tucano a la Presidencia, José Serra, aprovechó una
entrevista después del encuentro con los militares en Rio de Janeiro para abrir
fuego contra el petista. El tucano afirmó que Lula se escondió tras el
publicitario de la campaña, Duda Mendonça, y el procurador de la República Luiz
Francisco de Souza, quien presentó ayer una querella contra Ricardo Sérgio de
Oliveira, ex-tesorero de campaña de Serra.
Éste, además, acusó al petista de estar a favor de
la bomba atómica y dijo, en una crítica a Lula, que no se puede plantear una
campaña electoral sobre la base de la paz y del amor.
— Nuestro propósito es que sean planteadas
cuestiones políticas. Lula se ha ocultado mucho. Va al debate, está Garotinho.
En TV, está el Lula light de Duda Mendonça. Ahora está el procurador petista.
Ya es hora de que Lula se muestre tal como es para que podamos debatir — dijo
Serra.
En una entrevista en el Hotel Glória, el tucano
citó en tres ocasiones el Tratado de No-Proliferación de Armas Nucleares,
firmado por Brasil, para decir que Lula está en contra del acuerdo y, por
tanto, a favor de la bomba atómica. El viernes, durante un encuentro con los
militares, el petista criticó el acuerdo, pero dijo que no pretende revisarlo.
— Él está en contra el Tratado de No-Proliferación
de Armas Nucleares. O sea, a favor de que Brasil fabrique la bomba atómica. Yo
estoy en contra. Creo que para la población esas cuestiones son importantes.
Quiero debatirlas — explicó Serra.
“Tengo el derecho de pedir cuentas”
Según él, su campaña no puede ser clasificada como
hecha de ataques al petista:
— Eso no existe, incluso porque personalmente
tengo respeto hacia Lula. Desde el punto de vista político, tenemos el derecho
de pedirle cuentas. Si Lula defiende la bomba atómica, es interesante que
muestre cómo. Si defiende diez millones de empleos, debe mostrar cómo. Eso no
se resuelve sólo con palabras.
El tucano justificó además el tono de su campaña.
— Las personas necesitan tener claro a quién van a
elegir. Si es una nueva versión, si es sólo a efectos de medios de
comunicación. Pueden o no votar en mí, pero me estoy presentando tal como soy —
dijo.
Otro blanco de las críticas de Serra fue la
relación del PT com el MST y de éste con las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia (Farc). El tucano exigió una toma de posición de Lula sobre el asunto:
— El MST ha tenido relación com as Farc. ¿Eso es
correcto? ¿Qué piensa Lula? ¿Las invasiones del MST seguirán si Lula gana? ¿Y,
si gana otro, continuarán? Como si eso fuese un juego, ilegítimo desde el punto
de vista de la democracia.
Serra evitó responsabilizar directamente al
presidente del PT, José Dirceu, de la agresión sufrida por el gobernador Mário
Covas durante una huelga de profesores en el 2000. Ayer, el programa tucano
exibió imágenes de un discurso en el que Dirceu dice que los gobernantes tenían
que recibir un varapalo en las urnas y en las calles.
— No vi el programa. Me acuerdo del hecho.
Probablemente, no fue el responsable, pero dijo lo que ha dicho. No tengo
objeción alguna, y no me voy a enfadar si alguien me saca en TV diciendo algo
que he dicho.
NOTAS
[i] Dr. Constantine C. Menges is currently
Professor in the Practice of International Relations at The George Washington
University, where he also directs the Program on Transitions to Democracy. He
has served as a senior foreign policy official, including in the White House as
Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and is
currently completing a book on the U.S., Russia, and China. [Contact Numbers--Telephone
202-994-7099, Fax 202-994-5436]
[ii] This has also been submitted for publication
as an op-ed.
Mensagem ao Fórum Brazzil.com
Posted by Olavo de Carvalho
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002 at 06:59:00
Message:
Dear friends,
Mr. Menges analysis is completely right. Mr. da
Silva is a main Brazilian supporter of Colombian FARC, whose representative in
Brazil is Fernando Beira-Mar, a cruel and sadistic criminal whose gang
frightens our people, our government and even our Army. Brazil is up to the
point of becoming a new Colombia, owing to people like Mr. Lula da Silva and
Beira-Mar. This is not just an opinion. It's a fact. People who try to cover
facts under pseudo-patrioric rethorics are not real patriots. They are just
stupid.
Moreover, Mr. Menges is not a US government
official, he is just an intelligence analyst who tries to understand what is
happening in Brazil. If a simple press article is an "undue interference
in Brazilian affairs", then all press commentary in foreign newspapers concerning
Brazilian politics should be prohibited, except those favorable to Mr. da
Silva, of course.
To say that Mr. da Silva's enemies intend to
"overthrow the government and remilitarize Brazil" is a huge and
cynical lie. Mr. da Silva is overtly supported by the military, to whom he
promises government money for nuclear research (appealing to the old ambition
of making Brazil an anti-american atomic world power - exactly what Mr. Menges
had foretold). Mr. da Silva is very close to ultranationalist military, the
most dangerous part of Brazilian Armed Forces.
It's also a lie that the Workers Party (PT) is not
a revolutionary one. Some months ago a political scientist at Rio Grande, Prof.
José Giusti Tavares, wrote that it was a revolutionary party and was sued for
that. He brought to Justice the evidences confirming his dyagnosis (papers from
the Party itself) and was acquited. Mr. da Silva himself admited to his
extreme-left supporters that any "light" tone he had adopted in his
electoral propaganda is just this: electoral propaganda, and nothing more.
Well, some liars and telling people to read O
Globo instead of believing Mr. Menges. Bullshit. I am myself one of O Globo's
columnists, and this is what I wrote there some days ago:
Harvest Time
Olavo de Carvalho
O Globo (Rio de Janeiro), September 7, 2002
After the downfall of the USSR became an
accomplished fact, the Forum of São Paulo has been, since 1990, the most
powerful initiative taken to restart the international communist movement and,
in Fidel Castro words, "to regain in Latin America what was lost in East
Europe". Summoned by the Cuban dictator and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the
Forum joins the legal Communist (and pro-Communist) parties, engaged in the
struggle for cultural and political hegemony within their nations, and armed
organizations involved in kidnapping, terrorism and drug traffic. Among the
last, the outstanding one is Farc, whose connections with the Brazilian drug
market were proven with the arrest of Fernandinho Beira-Mar. There are also
double-faced organizations, both legal and illegal, like the Chilean Communist
Party, whose armed wing had something to do with the kidnapping of Washington
Olivetto.
Perhaps the readers will at first find strange a
meeting in which legally organized parties fraternize with criminal gangs.
Actually, this association only repeats the old Leninist rules that recommend
the joining of legal and illegal means in the revolutionary struggle. In fact
one of the advantages of the international alliance is to allow that the
promiscuous mixture of licit and illicit ways, of moralist rhetoric and drug
traffic, of beautiful ideals and the brutality of kidnappings, of humanitarian
sentimentalism and organized terror- a mix so clear and evident in continental
scale, and at meetings of the Forum- that it appears disguised and nebulous
when seen from the perspective of each separate nation. Using Argentineans to
act in Mexico, Bolivians in Brazil or Brazilians in Chile, the most obvious
connections become invisible to the eyes of local public opinion: the legal
parties continue above any suspicion, and the simple suggestion of
investigating them is rejected as an intolerable offense, when the arrest of
criminals shows full proof of the intimate association between organized crime
and leftist politics in the continent; identification that becomes still more
evident when the arrest of such persons is followed, with magical coincidence,
by the quick and effective mobilization, for the criminals, of officials and "decent
folk" of the left.
Since 1990, the Forum of São Paulo has been
meeting regularly. The tenth meeting took place in Havana, Cuba, in December,
2001. Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was there. To deny therefore that he is
associated politically with the other entities, signatories to the declarations
of the Forum, it is to deny the validity of the Brazilian presidential
candidate's signature on official documents of international relevance. As
wrote Vasconcelo Quadros in the "Isto É" of March 2002, "Brazil
shelters a secret network of support of international guerrilla organizations
employed in kidnappings, bank robberies and drug traffic". In a country in
which any phone call to a swindler is enough to place a politician under police
suspicion, a countrywide refusal to investigate a link enshrined in public
documents it is, at least, surprising.
Still more surprising is that, among so many
journalistic commentators, policemen, politicians and the military, all them
reputed as intelligent, nobody gets-or wants-to establish a logical link
between those facts and the declaration of Dr. Leonardo Boff, in "Jornal
do Brasil" of August 23, that with the next election "the time for
the Brazilian revolution will have arrived. The sowing was already been done. It
is harvest time". Or, when using the word "revolution", didn't
the retired clergyman mean anything of the sort, and that all was innocent
hyperbole?
The massive and obstinate refusal to
face with realism this state of affairs can be explained by the fact that he
constitutes a dreadful reality, whose vision would be too traumatic for the
delicate nerves of a bourgeoisie dandy, terrified to the point of no longer
admitting the reality of the evil that terrifies him. Psychologically kidnapped
by a nameless Marxism that permeates the air, the dominant class is already
ripe to act its role of docile, smiling and helpful victim.
But, please, don't think that with
those remarks I am acting in favor or against any candidate to the Presidency
of the Republic. See this: four candidates, with token differences, have the
same ideology, and any one of them, when elected, cannot govern without the
support of at least one or two of the other three. It is therefore of a single
slate election, subdivided into four temporary denominations. Perhaps what Dr.
Boff will not say is that the revolution will be inaugurated with the victory
of candidate x or y, but with "the election" itself-no matter who
wins. From the psychological point of view, at least, that revolution has already
begun: the ideological uniformity, once accepted as the normal state of the
democratic politics, is enough to virtually outlaw, as "right wing
extremism", any word henceforth said in favor of liberal capitalism, of
the