Victory to the people of Honduras! Smash the Coup d'etat!

This is exactly i wonder where the Mao Tes-tung thinkers ought to stand.

I asked earlier for opinions about what Maoists in Venezuela could do not to act ultra left and, at the same time pressure state to dig into more solidified status. I am not talking about Venezuela's stand for Iran (is it any uglier than China's relations with Pakistan that was more India/Soviet relations based rather than say ?) but rather, as the following:

When comparing the situation, of course Venezuela and ... Bolivia are further to left than times when honorable comrade Dahal and CPN M comrades started their outstanding peopele's war and the way they built parallel governments in the countryside. But in current situation, how should a Maoist possibly deal with their soft socialist regimes? should they be within Bolivarian Circles and take them to further status or...

I'm trying to expand this discussion for the benefit of our new socialist friends not to fall into such traps only but rather, taking it to more radical point of standing, without serving the US interest.

And of course the coup must be condemned.

Vow. Comrade Caleb Maupin,

Sure i agree. I didn't see your note when i started typing the above note and...
by the way, i am very slowly reading Mr. Fred Goldstine's Low wage Capitalism book... is there a site somewhere were you guys have discussed it and reviewed to dig into?

Thanks

Fred Goldstein's book can be downloaded in full here:

http://www.lowwagecapitalism.com/

A video review I did of it is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoAfYpE0Ng&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flowwage.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F03%2Fvideo-book-review-low-wage-capitalism.html&feature=player_embedded />
and a video I did promoting it can be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJGLfJbaT9w />
It's a damn good book.

another good source on Honduras: http://www.honduraslaboral.org/index.php

The tone is now set for more coups in Latin America to take out any left or left-friendly leaders... Obama, where is our precious change?!?!?! lol... Of course, the military official who led the coup is a former attendee of the School of the Americas. Does anyone expect Venezuela to invade? Realistically?

Green Red: perhaps by clearing up one major confusion, you'll understand more readily why Chavez the "Socialist" would throw so much support behind Iran or why Mao the "Communist" gave guns to Apartheid South Africa. The simple answer is: neither represent Socialism/Communism!

Hell, Norway does a better job of giving us a picture of a new world than either of those aforementioned regimes - but Norway falls in to certain class limitations because it is a (temporarily) generous Capitalism rather than a liberatory Communism.

Chavez is more about rhetoric; his nationalizations have been limited and he hasn't fully solidified the PSUV as the monolithic party of Venezuela - but he is arguably beginning that path well.

Mao was a serious State-Capitalist: nationalizing and "collectivizing" everything in sight, turning every facet of individuality and forcing it in to a mould that was to form a cog in a grand scheme known as the "state plan." It didn't work as well for China as it did Russia, but a real industrial base was definitely grown, and agricultural output eventually stabilized. With the vast majority now converted in to Proletarians by the State-Capitalist system, Capitalism was prepared to take up the reigns - and that objective force propelled the Gang out and put in Xiaoping and his friends. We know the story from there.

Such an analysis employs materialism, dialectical analysis, and critical thinking - comprehensively, doesn't it make a lot more sense than hearing how the leadeship was simply "poisoned" with that terrible mental influction of "revisionism"? Once we retreat from Marx and again place ideas over reality, standing Marx on his head, we retreat from the very breaking point between idealism and Marxian materialism. And that, comrades, is when we stop being Communists.

Hmmmmm.

Martin writes:

<blockquote>"why Mao the “Communist” gave guns to Apartheid South Africa."</blockquote>

This is a factual error. It did not happen. And has never been alleged by anyone as far as I know. Maoists internationally were highly active opposing apartheid and supporting African liberaton movements -- including specifically in South Africa (but also in Zimbabwe, Angola and Mozambique).

The Maoist government in China had a complex policy which included three prongs:
1) Supporting African Liberation movements

2) Sending support to the "frontline states" facing South Africa (most famous example is the building of the railroad from Tanzania to Zambia -- linking Zambia to the Indian ocean in ways that allowed the country more economic independence from South Africa).

3) Opposing Soviet efforts to make inroads, and use the African Liberation forces as proxies in their global rivalry with the U.S.

The historical situation was that there were three national liberation organizations in Angola. MPLA , FNLA and UNITA. The Soviet Union (and its allies like Cuba) backed the MPLA, and used their forces (including Cuban troops) to hoist the MPLA into power. China supported joint negotiations of the three forces, and when that proved impossible verbally backed the non-Soviet forces -- meaning FNLA and UNITA.

In the bitter fighting that emerged, UNITA (which despite leftist rhetoric was ultimately rooted in the one bordergroup in the southeastern Angolan border region) sought South African (and U.S. backing).

So you had the just liberation struggle of Angola overlapping with the inter-imperialist proxy fighting of the two warblocs.

At that time, (1974-75) the forces in China that were soon to stage an anti-Maoist coup were strongly consolidated in the Foreign Ministry, and so the overall Chinese policy reflected their particular (and non-revolutionary) currents. This included an approach to the anti-Soviet policy that often prettified some clearly non-revolutionary forces and governments.

In other words, you have a long history of support for revolutionary movements (includingly active relations with African Liberation movements) by Maoist China, and then (in this particular period, worldwide) a Chinese foreign policy that represents a departure from that in some important ways.... and that soon (in power) erupts into all all-around pro-U.S. and anti-revolutionary policy. In this pre-coup period (1974-75) the opposing lines were contending sharply, including within the foreign policy.

In that period there were radical and pro-Maoists forces in South Africa (Azania) fighting apartheid (mainly within the more radical nationalist formations PAC and then eventually the new Black Consciousness Movement and AZAPO). They too criticized the more pro-Soviet forces (which were grouped inside the ANC and the South African communist party, and which were generally committed to a "charterist" course that intended to overthrow Apartheid but not overthrow the property relations that were the basis for white supremacy and imperialist domination.)

Again: Martin's remarks are confused and mistaken on many levels. China did not back apartheid (certainly not with guns). Mao in this period was not involved in such foreign policy decisions at this point (1974-75) anyway. Maoists around the world (including us in the U.S.) were heavily focused on supporting African Liberation movements (the Maoists in the U.S. helped organize the actions of the African Liberation Support Committee which were leading national actions at that time).

Hi C Maupin, thanks for your lead.... but after seeing an article of the workers world saying
<blockquote>
<a href="/http://www.workers.org/2009/editorials/neda_agha-soltan_0702/" rel="nofollow">"Workers World Editorial: Who killed Neda Agha-Soltan? </a>
Consider this scenario:

<em>A CIA-trained sharpshooter takes position on a rooftop in Tehran. His contact on the street below, waiting with a camera, calls. “She just got out of the car. A perfect target.”
He takes aim. Shoots. He disappears...Is that what happened to Neda Agha-Soltan? We admit it. We don’t know. But you don’t know either.... </em></blockquote>

This truly irritates me - disappoints me profoundly.

* * * * * *

Thanks Etlingdichung

* * * * * *

Comrade Martin, we weren't in those shoes of past century revolutionaries to judge them and, comparing Norway - a metropolitan imperialist country with Venezuela is way out of line brother. But still, let's condemn the coup and, see how much Obama can do to save face and, let's rather focus that what Maoist (and anarchos syndicalists) have got to say in how to radicalize Venezuela without acting hand in hand with gringo made contras.
Thanks anyway

p.s.

I noticed your just now Nando Good Morning!

Thanks for your clarification.... Not taking your every word exact as same but, generaly speaking you are right.

Equating Cuban presence there with Soviet is unfair. that's the least on my part.

Because the coup happened days ago, and the leading up to this coup d'etat has been brewing for weeks, there are a number of other sources that we can follow. (CNN en español has been covering this story all day and night for days, up to the minute and on the ground reporting, and even interviews.)

While this initial article gives some background notes, I think its weakness is--it portrays the Rio Group who met in an emergency conference yesterday in Managua, Nicaragua as solely the "leftists", with Chavez dominating the discussion. And while Chavez is perfectly willing and able to dominate a discussion about broccoli, that misses the significance of what is going on here.

(An article in the AP this morning talked about Zelaya's growing ties with Chavez, didn't give all that much new info. and so I am not going to even post the link here. But it does reveal the growing propaganda--in some quarters, misleading to the more conservative forces, and could be misleading to the Leftist forces as well.)

Here's my basic point, at least in reference to rendering a somewhat more realistic view of the political landscape.

In the emergency conference held yesterday in Nicaragua, with Zelaya in attendance, it consisted of many heads of government, including Arias from Costa Rica, Calderon (Mexico), Correa (Ecuador), Argentina, Raul Castro (Cuba), Guatemala, Bolivia (Morales), Brasil (Lula),etc. (Think there were 23 nations represented.) The vote was unanimous in condemning the coup, rejection of the new govt., a call for reinstatement of Zelaya, the coup "illegal" (which it was--what coup isn't?), a call for sanctions, etc. (Chavez -- alone in this -- putting Venezuela on alert, and issuing empty threats.)

The new, self-imposed gov't. says this was "legal" because they had the sanction of the Honduran Supreme court, <i>beforehand</i>--Micheletti even stating that this is not a military coup d'etat, but a civil ousting, even though elections are supposed to be held in 2010. Not only a coup d'etat, but a fâit accompli.

It is becoming clearer, that Zelaya was trying to pull a Chavez maneuver, and have a (unpopular)referendum voted on, so that he could run for another term...but no matter what his machinations, the overall sentiment is that the conservative and centrist forces in Honduras took all this to an extreme, i.e. a coup, while Honduras tries to present a "democratic" image to the rest of the world.

(And, separately, from the Rio Group, the UN, nations in the EU such as Germany, and Obama issued statements of condemnation.)

A Ka Comrade said to me yesterday that they had found an article in the NYT insinuating that the U.S. knew something about the coup beforehand. (There have been 500-600 U.S. troops stationed in the Honduran barracks for a long time. During the coup, they were restricted to their barracks.) But to immediately go off into-- must have something to do with the U.S. imperialists-- IMO also misses the boat.

Thing is--the last crisis that brought all these L.A./C.A./Carib. nations together was Colombia's (Uribe who ironically was meeting with Obama yesterday in the Casa Blanca)invasion into Ecuador, in search of FARC.

Unity amongst L.A. (including centrists like Bechelat, Chile, Kirchner, Argentina, Panama, etc.) was the image that these L.A. nations have been trying to promote and propagandize, even if there are stark differences politically. So, with Honduras...and with much fragility of these governments in their own right, a coup d'etat in Honduras is something none of these other governments can tolerate; they are forced to form a "united front", in part to show their strength and avoid their own coup d'etat's. (The more left-leaning, neoliberal, etc. governments have been pushing for this united front for quite a while, but their point of view is--we don't need the U.S. or any superpower. We have the collective resources, and can do our own bidding on a world scale.)

Meanwhile, and as Chavez takes a raunchy position on Iran, his diplomats are meeting with the U.S. State Dept. to better diplomatic (and economic) relations bet. the two.

El Congreso in Honduras met hours after the military coup, and Micheletti (Congreso leader)was sworn in, and the vote "unanimous" (feeble dissension from the floor). But here's the telling thing--in an interview on CNN en español that night, and even some remarks in front of the Congress, Micheletti said that this coup was perfectly "legal" because it had the approval of the Honduran Supreme Court.

As far as the Honduran "masses"--the initial reaction was outrage by a few hundred, except at first, many of the people were not mobilized -- for one thing, the new govt. immediately cut off all news, only playing music on the airwaves, the military is in force on the streets (even in outlying towns outside the capital), and most in this extremely poor country had no idea what was going on. As of yesterday, the crowds have swelled in the thousands (but not to overblow this, nothing like Iran)and are engaged in some street battles with the army and police.

As far as I know, there are pockets of leftist forces in Honduras, but not particularly organized. So to get all tripped off on what are Maoists, or Marxist Leninists doing in this crisis, IMO is not necessarily a happenin' thing.

I will try and find other links for people, besides the ones mentioned above. So far what I've found best are links in Spanish.

Article on School of Americas and the coup - http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/06/honduran-coup-shines-spotlight-on-controversial-us-training-school-in-georgia.html

See the below, believe me. Even if tomorrow they put the guy back, Obama takes it well and it turns out that it was planned to save face for the US position in OAS i would not be surpirsed. After Oxy pulling out of Colombia and saying price of oil search ain't good here let's go to Middle East and Africa, along a friend i've concluded that the US doesn't want to yet get to serious with Latin American peoples not to get a feedback until it has exhusted African Asian peoples' lives and resources.


Zelaya vows to return as Honduras unrest flares

AFP – A demonstrator throws a Molotov cocktail during clashes between supporters of ousted Honduran President …

by Ana Fernandez – 1 hr 59 mins ago

TEGUCIGALPA (AFP) – Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya vowed to return to Honduras as angry supporters clashed with riot police near the presidential palace here.

Zelaya told a meeting of regional leaders in the Nicaraguan capital Managua he planned to travel on Tuesday to Washington, where US President Barack Obama has denounced the coup as illegal.

From there he would go to New York and address the UN General Assembly, which held emergency talks on the crisis on Monday.

And he added: "I go to Tegucigalpa on Thursday," thus setting up a potentially explosive showdown with the newly installed administration of congressional leader Roberto Micheletti.

Zelaya also accepted the offer of Jose Miguel Insulza, the head of the Organization of American States, to accompany him back to Honduras, along with leaders of other friendly countries who may wish to travel with him.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged Zelaya to meet with Obama, saying the US president's attention to the matter could "deliver a major blow" to those who ousted Zelaya.

In Washington Monday, Obama told reporters: "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there."

He called for international cooperation to solve the crisis peacefully.

The State Department warned US citizens against travel to Honduras and advised those already there to stay indoors.

In Tegucigalpa itself, hundreds of angry Zelaya supporters defied a government curfew and erected barricades near the presidential palace.

They threw rocks and Molotov cocktails and used pipes and metal bars against shield-bearing riot police. The security forces cracked down with tear gas and gunfire, an AFP photographer said.

The violence, the most serious unrest in years in this Central American country, left several demonstrators and security forces injured.

Zelaya was deposed on Sunday when troops bundled the 57-year-old out of his bed in pyjamas and whisked him away to exile in Costa Rica.

Just hours later, the Honduran Congress swore in its speaker Micheletti as the interim president until January.

It was he who imposed the 48-hour curfew on the capital.

Politicians, business leaders, most communications media and a good part of the population have applauded Zelaya's overthrow, despite the violent street protests.

Micheletti brushed off international condemnation of the takeover, insisting he "had come to the presidency not by a coup d'etat but by a completely legal process as set out in our laws."

But Zelaya insists he remains the elected leader, and scores of young people, many wearing scarves to cover their faces, protested in the capital Tegucigalpa Monday. Shots were heard in the city late Sunday.

"President Mel is the only one," said Joseph, who was wielding an iron bar, and using the president's nickname.

"It was a coup, Mel Zelaya did not resign," agreed Amilcar Umanzo, brandishing a human rights manual in his hand. "The political and economic class united to overthrow the constitutional president."

The military moved against Zelaya after he pressed ahead with plans for a referendum on changing the constitution to allow him to run for a second term in November elections.

But it was almost uniformly condemned in Latin America, the United States and Europe.

Meeting in Managua, the Rio Group, an organization of 22 Latin American countries, condemned the coup and called for Zelaya's "immediate and unconditional" reinstatement.

They also said they were recalling their ambassadors, as did Mexico and Chile.

Honduras' neighbors in Central America agreed to isolate Tegucigalpa politically and economically, ordering the regional bank to suspend loans and payments to Honduras.

Russia and Canada have joined the growing list of nations speaking out against the overthrow, and the European Commission called an urgent meeting with Central American ambassadors to consider the future of trade talks.

Nando, are you serious? You're going to gloss over Mao backing the SAME organizations (UNITA, FNLA, RENAMO) that the United States, South Africa, and Israel also supported? Do you listen to yourself?

Mao's policy was "revisionism is worse than Imperialism," and that allowed him to support crushing of national resistance movements supported by the Soviet Union. He gave weapons, ammunition, money, training, and even strategic technologies to those rebels *knowing full well* that South Africa could and would get their hands on it as well. UNITA and the South African army were so well enmeshed, Mao literally handed them whatever he handed UNITA. If that's not fucked up, I don't know what is!

Maolol: http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3997&amp;tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=196&amp;no_cache=1 />
That's almost as bad as pretending its okay for Mao to aid the Khmer Rouge: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5687 />
Any leader who hangs out with Jonas Savimbi and Pol Pot should become very questionable in any intelligent Communist's little red book...

Comrade Martin...why are you posting your comment to Nando here on the Honduras thread???

Am looking for the link to an AP article from yesterday about the "ousting of" which has statements from other governments in Latin America.

But meanwhile to give people some sort of scope on this, as the crisis in Honduras was on the front burner, elections in Argentina took 2nd stage...and I think what the following article shows are some of the machinations going on throughout Latin America, as well as in conjunction with Honduras:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090630/wl_time/08599190786100

"Argentina Poll: Kirchner Loss a Lesson for Latin America"

Miles, comment 7. I replied here because it was posted here - seemed like the right way to do it, unless I missed something.

Comrade Martin...perhaps this is just my own confusion...my impression is that your and Nando's comments were more related to the So. Africa video??? Who can keep up with all this?

Meanwhile here is the very latest article on the AP today, worth a read in terms of some sort of face off, power struggle. And I forgot to mention that as part of the growing "resistance" workers and unions are becoming more involved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup

"Ousted Honduran leader [sic] may face arrest on return"

<em>[I realize this exchange is a bit off-topic for this Honduran discussion, but it has emerged here, so here it is.]</em>

Martin writes:

<blockquote>"Nando, are you serious? You’re going to gloss over Mao backing the SAME organizations (UNITA, FNLA, RENAMO) that the United States, South Africa, and Israel also supported? Do you listen to yourself?</blockquote>

I will not respond using the similar tone of indignant moral self-righteousness.

In my post, i gloss over nothing -- i was first pointing out that your comments are uninformed, and then trying to dig into the actual contradictions and communist experiences from the 1970s -- so that your uniformed claims at least becomes an occasion for some factual discussion.

First, Mao died in 1976 after a long debilitating illness. And i was pointing out that Chinese foreign policy was led in that period by forces <em>hostile </em>to Mao, and that he was not involved in these decisions. So the contradictions of these events reflect a very sharp line struggle (literally a class struggle) within socialist China.

Second, your facts are simply wrong, repeatedly.

Just one new example: RENAMO was formed in 1975 by the Rhodesian white supremacist forces to attack bases in Mozembique. It was an explicitly anti-communist organization -- and among its targets were ZANU bases. ZANU was allied with China. In other words, RENAMO had barely been formed when (in 1976) Mao died, and his enemies around Deng Xiaoping came to power. The Maoists did not support RENAMO. Your claims here are wrong.

It is similar with your discussion of the other groups:

The FNLA and UNITA were liberation forces in Angola. In the early 1970s they were widely recognized as such. China urged the unity of the three groups in Anglola. However the MPLA received massive support from the Soviet bloc and made a bid for sole power. That bid and that power ultimately rested on Cuban troops.

[Green Red argues that we should not equate Cuban with the Soviet Union. Sure, they are not literally the same. But in that particular period, they were especially close -- the Soviet Union propped up Cuba, and the Cubans were carrying out classic East Bloc methods in their economy and society. There was a mechanical adoption of Soviet managment and production techniques. And, the cubans were providing troops for Soviet proxy operations... not just in Angola (where they at least fought South Africans) but also in Ethiopia where they played a terrible role propping up Mengistu and attacking Eritrian liberation forces.) The Cuban troops didn't walk to Angola, they arrived on a massive Soviet airlift -- i.e. defacto as deployed forces of the Warsaw Pact grabbing a beachhead in Africa. This gave the Soviet war bloc an important 'figleaf' -- a progressive veneer -- because they were opposing South African threats against Angola. But zoomed back, on a global scale, the Soviet operations were anything but progressive -- and represented imperialist attempts to seek a redivision of the world... to wrest strategic and profitable parts of the world from the U.S. empire over to a new imagined Soviet sphere.]

As happened in many places in the world, the situation polarized in Angola -- with one set of political groups alligning with the Soviet bloc and their rivals aligning with the U.S. bloc. And it had a terrible impact on the liberation struggles that had emerged in the 1960s. And the polarization was along lines that did not serve revolutionary politics.

Under Reagan, after 1980, the CIA sought to fund a global network of rightwing "freedom fighters" against pro-Soviet forces. This included the anti-Sandinista Contras (in Nicaragua), Renamo in Mozembique, and also Unita in Angola. (FNLA was by then largely defunct.) But this has nothing to do with Mao (who died in 1976), and it has nothing to do with socialist China -- since by 1980, china had clearly gone through a major transformation toward capitalism.

For example, Martin implies that Mao had somekind of overlapping complicity with Israel. This is a totally irresponsible and thoughtless charge. In fact, for much of its existence, China was virtually the only and most prominent supporter of the Palestinian revolutionary groups. And there was no relationship between China and Israel.

By contrast, the Soviet Union (under Stalin) was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Israel. The Soviet Union (under the social imperialist Breshnev) developed its relationship with Palestinian groups as the 1970s wore on, and precisely as they sought to use these groups as proxy forces in their rather imperialist global contention with the U.S. And those ties had a terrible impact on those groups (particularly the PFLP but also Fatah).

Martin writes:

<blockquote>"Mao’s policy was “revisionism is worse than Imperialism”</blockquote>

This is wrong in every way.

Mao's analysis was that "the rise to power of revisionism is the rise to power of capitalism."

He explained that the rise of conservative politics and forces <em>within</em> communist parties and socialist countries produced capitalism. His analysis was <em>not </em>that "revisionism" was <em>worse </em>than "imperialism" -- his analysis was that the Soviet Union had <em>become</em> imperialist. (And this is an analysis that i agree with.)

The contradiction between the US and the USSR had been a contradiction between imperialism and socialism (during the socialist period of the USSR from 1917 to the 1950s).

But it <em>became</em> a contradiction between imperialist powers. And this intensified over the 70s into a defining rivalry, where each war bloc bribed, armed and deployed proxy forces all over the world. This had a huge impact on the national liberation forces of the world -- because they were being pulled with great force to align with one force or another.

Mainly, the U.S. had a much larger empire, and many more governments on its side. And mainly, the pro-soviet forces were b build out of various oppositional forces. But that was not universally true: in eastern europe, the pro-U.S. forces were oppositional, and the pro-soviet forces were the government.

Martin writes:

<blockquote>"[Mao's analysis] allowed him to support crushing of national resistance movements supported by the Soviet Union."</blockquote>

This is nonsense. And there are no examples that you can give for this irresponsible charge.

The whole attraction and center of Chinese policy was the support of national liberation movements in the 50s and 60s. And during the height of the storm of the 1960s, it was (of course) the Soviet Union that was urging revolutionary movements in the third world to not press forward, but to rely on the Soviet Union's nuclear forces and economy to be the key factor for social change.

The support for national liberation struggles was the most outstanding feature of Maoism.

Meanwhile, the main national liberation movement supported by the Soviet Union was the Vietnamese movement -- and Mao (obviously) did not support "crushing" them , but Maoist china served as a key, strategic base area for the Vietnamese (with supplies, safe zones, labor building railroads, massive supply of weapons, food, etc.) In other words both Soviet and Chinese material went to Vietnam (even in the period where the soviet union and china were virtually on a war footing against each other.)

Your remark is simply wrong.

<blockquote>"[Mao] gave weapons, ammunition, money, training, and even strategic technologies to those rebels *knowing full well* that South Africa could and would get their hands on it as well. UNITA and the South African army were so well enmeshed, Mao literally handed them whatever he handed UNITA.</blockquote>

This is absurd. On many levels. China was very generous in providing weapons to national liberaton movements -- but on principle they supplied small arms, because they wanted to support peoples war.

The charge that Maoist china was defacto arming South Africa is absurd. (They were infact accused constantly of supplying weapons to those fighting South Africa, which was true.)

The charge that there were "strategic technologies" involved in Chinese aid to national liberation movements is bizarre.

Martin writes:

<blockquote>"If that’s not fucked up, I don’t know what is!</blockquote>

No comment.

Nando, you're right that I was in error about RENAMO - Mao was dead before China aided them (though I would argue that nothing fundamentally changed in China's trajectory with Mao's passing except the personalities involved.)

However, you continue to ignore the facts on the ground: Mao supported UNITA. There's really a big period after that. If Stalin had given money to the Nazi Party, would you not call it quits right there? (As a note, the Comintern DID actually order the German Communist Party to unite with Nazi-organized rallies supporting the Berlin Transit Workers' strike in the 30s, but that's another story...)

Its clear to me that you let fiction guide your ideology. The official version that excuses Mao is not good enough for the Proletariat - and shouldn't be for anyone who calls themself a fighter for them.

Mao's dubious (if transitional) relationships with UNITA (and through them South Africa), Israel, the United States, Democratic Kampuchea, Siad Barre's Somalia, and (one of my Mao fav's) Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire - all make Mao just as big of (if not worse in some ways) an Imperialist leader. Only his Imperialism more resembled the USSR's than the USA's - it had the unfortunate side effect of prolonging the power of Apartheid in South Africa (it was the defeat of the SANDF and UNITA in Angola that led to quick victory for SWAPO in Namibia, followed quickly by the collapse of Apartheid altogether.)

As for Vietnam, this isn't a very good example of China being helpful! You know they abandoned them competely in 1968 because of their alignment to the USSR, right? Mao was ever only helpful when it served his interests (that is, when he was still aligned to the Soviet camp). Such is the attitude of the finest Imperialist.

I find it comical to suggest that Mao was any genuinely more supportive of national liberation struggles than the USSR. Would you like to make a comparative list of who supplied more weapons assistance to African liberation groups? Why do you think FRELIMO and the MPLA did so well? Soviet arming... Both Mao and the USSR supported national liberation - they just had competing agendas to manipulate the people being liberated.

Martin writes:

<blockquote>"Nando, you’re right that I was in error about RENAMO – Mao was dead before China aided them.</blockquote>

Ok. next point... I want to note that this thread started with a particular absurd claim, when Martin wrote:

<blockquote>...Mao the “Communist” gave guns to Apartheid South Africa....</blockquote>

The fact is that Mao never gave guns to South Africa. Period. At this point, it would be helpful to simply provide any evidence you have -- which arms, when, where are they documented or discussed? Since there is no evidence (because there was not Chinese aid to South Africa) it would be good if that too were acknowledged.

<blockquote>"I would argue that nothing fundamentally changed in China’s trajectory with Mao’s passing except the personalities involved."</blockquote>

It is a whole separate discussion. But the most basic facts of "china's trajectory" (acknowledged by virtually everyone of many diverse politics) is that there was a huge dis-juncture and rupture (in 1976-78) in which china changed -- leading to massive reversal of policy and culture -- the peoples communes were abolish, the doors were opened to imperialist penentration, all the "socialist new things" of the cultural revolution were reversed, China sought to cement a military alliance with the U.S., and so on.

<blockquote>you continue to ignore the facts on the ground: Mao supported UNITA. There’s really a big period after that.</blockquote>

But your commments seem to imply that UNITA was some obviously anti-communist, pro-apartheid force that was being supported by china. this is very confused.

Perhaps you are not aware that UNITA was a national liberation organization from its emergence until the mid-70s -- or at least seemed to be to any observers. UNITA supported socialist revolution, it trained its cadre in Marxism, it attended conferences of revolutionary forces, it did everything that all the other revolutionary national liberation forces did (including fight the Portugese colonialists).

Its leadership Jonas Savimbi was (as became obvious) someone without core beliefs. And when the Soviet Union backed MPLA, he proved willing to seek arms and support wherever it was offered (which in his situation meant South Africa). And by the 1980s, he was openly meeting with U.S. representatives, speaking of himself as being part of the global fight for American-style democracy and whatever. Essentially, his politics were tribalist (and obviously opportunist), his forces were rooted in the Ovimbundu people, and he sought autonomy for them, from the Angolan government.

In other words, Savimbi <em>shifted</em> his allignments -- from apparently revolutionary to openly pro-imperialist. (And over the 1976-1985 this ran parallel to the much more important and much more criminal changes that were happening to the Chinese government -- after the overthrow of Maoism).

<blockquote>"Mao’s dubious (if transitional) relationships with UNITA (and through them South Africa), Israel, the United States, Democratic Kampuchea, Siad Barre’s Somalia, and (one of my Mao fav’s) Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire – all make Mao just as big of (if not worse in some ways) an Imperialist leader."</blockquote>

by now, anyone reading this exchange can see that these continued claims are themselves "dubious." I am particularly intrigued by the idea that <em>through</em> china's relationship with UNITA, they (therefore) have relations with "Democratic Kampuchea" (or Barre, or Seko, or....) Perhaps you are not aware how those things worked. Similarly, Zaire was the main sponsor of the northern Angola FNLA (not Savimbi's Unita).

This is all confused, and (yet again) factually wrong.

<blockquote>"As for Vietnam, this isn’t a very good example of China being helpful! You know they abandoned them competely in 1968 because of their alignment to the USSR, right? Mao was ever only helpful when it served his interests (that is, when he was still aligned to the Soviet camp). Such is the attitude of the finest Imperialist.</blockquote>

This is completely mistaken. Chinese aid continued to Vietnam during the course of the war -- and certainly long after 1968.

The Maoists had criticism of the 1968 Tet offensive (criticism that I believe were justified), but that certainly did not affect their aid. In fact, those red guard factions who called for disrupting Soviet arm shipments through china were sharply suppressed.

In other words, Mao did not cut off aid because of Vietnamese ties to the USSR. He not only continued his aid, but insisted that Soviet aid be allowed across china as well.

Your remarks are uninformed.

<blockquote>"I find it comical to suggest that Mao was any genuinely more supportive of national liberation struggles than the USSR. Would you like to make a comparative list of who supplied more weapons assistance to African liberation groups? Why do you think FRELIMO and the MPLA did so well? Soviet arming… Both Mao and the USSR supported national liberation – they just had competing agendas to manipulate the people being liberated."</blockquote>

YOu need to read what I wrote more quickly, because you miss the periodization i explained.

From the early 1950s to about 1970, the Soviet Union put forward a particularly poisonous theory: they said that the principal contradiction in the world was between imperialism and the USSR. And they argued that revolutionary movements (particularly in the third world) caused the danger of sparking a nuclear war, and the destructin of the Soviet Union. So they demanded several things: First, that people call off armed struggle, and adopt reformist strategies for change. Second, that the people of the world recognized the USSR (its economy and military) as the most dynamic factor for change in the world -- and seek their own progress by close allignment with the USSR. and third, the Soviet Union worked closely with the U.S. in various parts of the world to diffuse revolutionary movements (the prime example among many being the details of the 1954 Geneva Accords over vietnam's first revolutionary war.)

China by contrast was a real "beacon" of support for national liberation -- denouncing the Soviet theories, training revolutionaries from around the world, supplying weapons and support for revolutionary wars, and ideologically putting forward strategic concepts for successful revolution.

By the 1970s, as the soviets gained nuclear parity with the u.s. and was less fearful of nuclear attack and as the U.S. was terribly bogged down in Vietnam, the Soviet union's strategy changed -- and they sought to confront the U.S. (where they could) to seize strategic and profitable parts of the world for a growing Soviet sphere of influence. (the exsiting soviet empire was terribly non-profitable -- you couldn't assemble much with Angola, ethiopia, Cuba, eastern europe and inroads in India..... their world position needed a huge leap before they could develop the integrated economic community they talked so much about.)

IN that sense, they developed ties with political movements i nthe third world that they used as "proxy" forces -- seeking to pry parts of the world in to the Soviet bloc. they had very little success, in general, and by the late 1980s they collapsed under the strain of the multi-leveled imperialist rivalry.

* * * * *

I repeat the basic point from above:

Martin writes:

<blockquote>...Mao the “Communist” gave guns to Apartheid South Africa....</blockquote>

The fact is that Mao never gave guns to South Africa. Period.

At this point, why don't you acknowledge that you have zero evidence for this false claim -- or else simply provide that evidence -- which arms, when, where are they documented or discussed?

Mao gave guns to South African puppet forces. The statement is true, albeit vicariously. If your whole arguement is in the directness of the exchange, then sure, you're right. But it doesn't offset the greater crime of supporting anti-Communist pro-Apartheid forces. Both the FNLA and UNITA began allying with Israel in 1963, and John Vorster recieved Sambivi around the same time Jonah visited Beijing, and you're going to tell me it wasn't obvious what direction they were headed when Mao offered his services to both against the MPLA?

Regardless, Mao knew consciously that any support he offered them would directly conflict with other (more clearly) Marxist-oriented rebels in the MPLA. He purposely allowed other fighters for national independence to be *killed* at the hands of his support solely in the name of fighting "revisionism"? How much more of a traitor can you be?

Even if UNITA *had* employed Socialist rhetoric - well, so did Hitler! The German Communists were not confused; they saw the orientation of these dishonest reactionaries. Why was Mao so different? Why was Mao so easily tricked by Barre, Mobutu, Sambivi, Nixon, Pol Pot and many others? Is it because Mao was just an unlucky guy? Or is it indicative of a much deeper problem?

We're Marxists, we study material reality and analyze objective forces. What forces did those despotic maniacs represent? Why is it that Mao could not see the error in supporting such demogogues while we are capable of discerning between, for example, Socialism and Obamamania? Because we can analyze objective forces - we know who Obama really represents. Mao could also do this, I'm sure, and it was obvious these people were not Communists and barely progressive (and never the most progressive forces he COULD have picked). The truth, anyone employing Marxism can see, is that Mao simply had no interest in Communism - only in forces which favored him.

China didn't do shit for national independence that the USSR wasn't already doing - and his purposes were no less Imperial. He wanted the same thing: more influence, more allies. National independence was a mere side-effect, and a fantastic point of rhetoric to draw more oppressed nations to your side (it was, after all, the side history was favoring at that point).

As a historical note on Vietnam, there were nearly half a million Chinese troops securing North Vietnam. What year did they leave? 1968. Look it up if you don't believe me. All assistance to the DRV after that point was mostly to refugees - not in financial or military support. (To their credit, I know a half-Vietnamese half-Chinese girl whose residence here is a testament to that.)

I'm not going to (yet again) deconstruct your comments. By now, other people reading this get the gist.

But you write:

<blockquote>"Mao gave guns to South African puppet forces. The statement is true, albeit vicariously."</blockquote>

First, you claimed that Mao gave arms to South Africa. Apparently you have to retreat from that outrageous claim. In fact, the Maoists armed and trained people <em>fighting</em> apartheid.

Acknowledge that.

Now, if you still want to assert that Mao (personally apparently given your repeated use of his name) approved armed shipments that went to "South African puppet forces," then simply give us the evidence.

What are you basing this claim on?
What year are you talking about?
Where is this claim documented?
Whose evidence are you accepting?
Is this something you just invented?

When did Mao ever help anyone fighting Apartheid? I absolutely refute that. He gave guns to pro-Apartheid, pro-South Africa rebels. If that isn't de facto giving guns to ("the cause of") South Africa, what is?

Your questions:
What are you basing this claim on? - Facts.
What year are you talking about? - 1964
Where is this claim documented? - http://books.google.com/books?id=cINUCik7OeUC&amp;lpg=PA9&amp;ots=yOA1ea3oVV&amp;dq=china%20assistance%20unita&amp;pg=PA9 /> Whose evidence are you accepting? - Not yours.
Is this something you just invented? - No.

You are trying to invent a bogus "alliance" between Maoist china and the racists of South Africa -- where in fact the Maoists were a key support for the <em>anti</em>-apartheid forces. And (as if that's not enough) you are also trying to invent some bogus connection between Maoist China and Israel.

Any history of the region will confirm that the Chinese Maoists were a KEY international support for the anti-apartheid resistance. In addition, Mao financed the railway from Tanzania to Zambia... so that the frontline states would have an independent opening to the sea (and not come under South african control). The Maoists trained, funded and armed forces like Zanu and PAC. And many of the other armed movements in southern Africa. The Maoists in China never gave arms to South Africa or their various armed proxies.

<b>You give a link that displays your confusion, and an indifference to facts. </b>

The page you link to (and the episode in 1964 you mention above)is on the history of the FNLA (which was based on Zaire, on the <em><a href="/http://media.maps.com/magellan/Images/ANGOLA-W1.gif" rel="nofollow">northern</a></em> border of Angola, ie <em>nowhere near</em> South Africa).

There is a complex history here, but even the book Martin cites gets at the essense with a subhead on page 7 <b>"FNLA and MPLA: Vehicles for Anti-Colonial Struggles"</b> The FNLA was an anti-Portugese liberation movement associated with forces in the former Congo.
No one has ever accused the FNLA of being pro-apartheid (and certainly not in 1964).
Chinese gave aid to FNLA (as they did to many of the African liberation movements).

How can you offer this discussion of Chinese aid to FNLA as proof that Mao gave arms to South Africa or pro-apartheid groups?

The great proletarian cultural revolution was the greatest attempt to rupture with conformity, feudal remnants, and state control. As much as Venezuela should be free of imperialist domination, it is not a burgeoning model of classess society and should not be upheld as such. When Mao called for the masses to rise up for a new revolution against the bourgeosie, and all structures, this was not a reform movement for a more generous capitalism, or cracking down on 'individuality' at it's essence but rather a social upheavel that stood with the aspirations of the worlds masses, while the ussr and USA were at it's throats while trying to viciously carve up the rest of the world. I do know China stood strong with the Black struggle in late 60s and early 70s in the Usa. Nando, thank you for clarifying this period and encouraging further study.

Nando, when did Mao give support to Anti-Apartheid forces?

What year did this occur?
Do you have a source for this?
Did you make this up?

The link I sent you connected Mao to the FNLA in 1964 - a YEAR after they locked arms with ISRAEL in 1963 and just around the time they met with SOUTH AFRICAN officials (remember how Zaire was allied with South Africa against "Communism"?)

Thanks for defeating your point for me!

There is a childish quality slipping into this. And I think the main historical points have been made.

What is occurring in Honduras is an ultra-rightist coup against the most progressive government that country has ever had. We can only hope that the coup is smashed totally. This would represent a serious setback to the central American forces of reaction. The planned "election" was not illegal by any means. It was a non-binding consultation. But even this was too much for the entrenched reactionaries. Zelaya is an anti-imperialist democrat and should be supported.

In the MLM Revolutionary Study Group article, "<a href="/http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/mlmrsg-evaluating-chinas-cultural-revolution-and-its-legacy-for-the-future/" rel="nofollow">Chinese Foreign Policy During the Maoist Era and its Lessons for Today</a>," there is a discussion of Chinese support for the liberation movements in Africa during the 1960s.
Here is an excerpt:

<blockquote>"In Africa, China gave military aid and training to revolutionary movements
throughout the continent. In camps in Tanzania and Algeria, the Chinese armed and trained
guerillas from FRELIMO in Mozambique, the PAIGC in Guinea-Bissau, ZANU in
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania and the ANC in South Africa.

In 1963, the Chinese sent military supplies from Tanzania and Congo-Brazzaville to
guerillas in the eastern Congo led by a former education minister in Lumumba's cabinet.
Also, in a secret military camp in Ghana, Chinese military instructors trained cadre for
revolutionary movements in French neo-colonies such as Dahomey (Benin), Ivory Coast,
Cameroon and Mali.

An essential part of Chinese military aid was political training of the officers and soldiers
of the revolutionary armed forces. Chinese instructors stressed that outside military aid, while
important, was secondary, and that self-reliant revolutionary struggle was of primary importance. Chinese statements in the 1960s about Africa stated that the strategy of protracted people’s war, including surrounding the cities by the countryside, was broadly applicable in mainly peasant, rural African countries. The understanding of a revolutionary-led united front is found in a Chinese People's Liberation Army document from 1961:

<blockquote>"We must tell [the Africans] about the Chinese revolutionary experience in order to reveal the true nature of both old and new colonialism….The important part of [their] activities lies in the national revolution and in making the united front spread everywhere on the continent. According to the analysis of Marxism, it is to be confirmed that the embryo of national revolution in these countries will become a genuine people's revolution, give rise to Marxists, form political parties of proletarians, and go towards the Socialist Revolution."</blockquote>

At the same time, China placed great emphasis on developing relations with the African
countries that had recently emerged from colonialism and sought to defend their new-found
independence from the Western imperialist powers. This led to focused united front diplomacy
with countries such as Ghana, Guinea, Mali and Tanzania. Trade agreements were signed,
African and Chinese delegations exchanged visits, and unity was reached in opposing the
remaining colonial powers in Africa. The largest single commitment of Chinese foreign aid to
Africa during the 1960s was financing and building the Tan-Zam railway between landlocked
Zambia and the coast of Tanzania." <a href="/http://www.mlmrsg.com" rel="nofollow">www.mlmrsg.com</a></blockquote>

With the shift in power towards the revisionist forces of Deng Xiao-ping and Zhou En-lai in the Chinese Communist Party in the mid-1970s, Chinese foreign policy retreated from support for national liberation struggles and developed the view that the Soviet social-imperialists were the "main danger" on a world scale. This led to Chinese political support of the pro-Western forces of UNITA and the FNLA in the Angolan civil war in 1975. However, socialist China never gave any support to the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Comrade Nando stated:

<blockquote>Green Red argues that we should not equate Cuban with the Soviet Union. Sure, they are not literally the same. But in that particular period, they were especially close -- the Soviet Union propped up Cuba, and the Cubans were carrying out classic East Bloc methods in their economy and society. There was a mechanical adoption of Soviet managment and production techniques. And, the cubans were providing troops for Soviet proxy operations... not just in Angola (where they at least fought South Africans) but also in Ethiopia where they played a terrible role propping up Mengistu and attacking Eritrian liberation forces.) The Cuban troops didn't walk to Angola, they arrived on a massive Soviet airlift -- i.e. defacto as deployed forces of the Warsaw Pact grabbing a beachhead in Africa. This gave the Soviet war bloc an important 'figleaf' -- a progressive veneer -- because they were opposing South African threats against Angola. But zoomed back, on a global scale, the Soviet operations were anything but progressive -- and represented imperialist attempts to seek a redivision of the world... to wrest strategic and profitable parts of the world from the U.S. empire over to a new imagined Soviet sphere.]</blockquote>

Friend Nando, being right on the belly of the beast, could you propose ANY alternative during that era (included submission to China) to survive under the belly of the beast?

on the other facts though, since i am nowhere near Nando/Martin as a well-read fellow, i have nothing to say except the same argument of Communist Party of India Maoist -- about how two line struggles must be taken seriously.

But back on the Honduras; is there not actually a chance for betterment of the social democrat looking states of Latin America to, get to the point that since army cannot be trusted even when elected democratically, hence let's arm the people and anihilate or, re construct the armies in the fasion of great comrade Prachanda's agenda?

Look at the MIR during Allende's Chile doing neigborhood organizing. Many experiences has been achieved ever shince then and even Chavez has made his Bolivarian circles. What next can there be without ultra left attitude?

This site us entirely too indulgent with people grinding axes, indifferent to actual history. This martin guy is talking our of his butt. He seems to have a cursory glance at a couple of books and confuses that with knowing something. Nando: if you want to tell the story of china and soviet policy disputes, which is important- why indulge disinformation(or whatever it is this martin us actually up to.

possibly Comrade Martin has also seen things like:

Foreign support

The MPLA received military and humanitarian support primarily from the governments of Algeria, Bulgaria,[4] Cape Verde Islands, Czechoslovakia,[5] the Congo, Cuba, Guinea-Bissau, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, North Korea, the People's Republic of China, Romania, São Tomé and Príncipe,[6] the Soviet Union, Sudan,[5] Tanzania, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia. While China did briefly support the MPLA,[7] it actively supported the MPLA's enemies, the anti-Communist FNLA and later UNITA, during the war for independence and the civil war.

as reported by WIKIPEDIA. Now how much of which side is correct... well ... people choose parts of Wikipedia that matches their desires. I simply wasn't there.

Some of the latest on Honduras:
check out the following article:
"UN tells Honduras to reinstate president"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup

Here are some interesting excerpts:

<blockquote>"The showdown was building to a climax as the presidents of Argentina and Ecuador signed on to accompany Zelaya and the heads of the Organization of American States and the U.N. General Assembly on a flight to Honduras on Thursday."...

"...The interim leader named by Congress, Roberto Micheletti, warned only an armed invasion could restore toppled President Manuel Zelaya..."

"...The Organization of American States — whose Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza had agreed to accompany Zelaya back to Honduras — planned an emergency meeting in Washington hours later to reinforce the pressure to reinstate the Honduran leader.

Some members — such as Venezuela — want to suspend Honduras under an agreement meant to prevent military coups, while others — including Colombia — argue that while the OAS should condemn the coup, suspending Honduras would be interventionist.

Mexico and Colombia's conservative governments joined the region's leftist leaders in condemning Zelaya's removal. Blocked trucks began lining up along Honduras' borders as neighboring countries imposed a trade ban."

"...The U.S. military, which has close ties to Honduran commanders, tried to avoid getting caught up in the dispute. It ordered most of its 800 personnel to remain inside the Soto Cano air base, 60 miles (100 kilometers) north of Tegucigalpa, allowing only "mission-essential" tasks, Southern Command spokesman Jose Ruiz said in Miami.

Honduras receives about $1 million a year from the United States to fight drug trafficking and Soto Cano is a key base in the fight against drugs. There's also a contingent of DEA agents in country. U.S. and Honduran officials estimate about 100 tons of Colombian cocaine pass through Honduras annually on their way to the United States."</blockquote>

Meanwhile the self-imposed govt. in Honduras said they would arrest Zelaya when he tried to step foot on Honduran soil. Even though the above article talks about the divisions among the people, the figures and actual circumstances are unclear...different reports coming out.

Tonight it was been reported on CNN en español that the World Bank has frozen funds to Honduras.

Thursday, when Zelaya makes an attempt to return to Honduras--accompanied by Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina, and others, it could be a showdown bet the "international" community and the OAS against the coup imposed govt. of the more reactionary forces like Micheletti. And I suspect Thursday will polarize the Honduran people even more...

Update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_honduras;_ylt=ApiK4QqaLKRkiKly.qXmN8Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJmZ2NzcDEwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNzAxL3VzX3VzX2hvbmR1cmFzBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNvYXNnaXZlczMtZGE-

"OAS gives 3-day deadline to Honduran coup leaders"

One excerpt pertaining to U.S.:

<blockquote>"Also Wednesday, a Pentagon spokesman said joint U.S.-Honduran military operations are on hold.

"We've postponed any activities in Honduras right now as we assess that situation," spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

Whitman would not be specific, but the suspension could be far-reaching, since the United States runs a large Central American security and counternarcotics operation from a jointly run air base in Honduras."</blockquote>

Actually a very good article from today's Associated Press, which if nothing else, reveals the political chess game going on in and around Honduras. Instead of a "stalemate", think things are looking more like "checkmate," except the victor is unclear, but does show how complicated things get when a struggle is played out on a world stage.:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090703/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup

"Interim Honduras leader hints open to early vote"

While the situation in Honduras seems to have quelled, actually the opposite is in play...it's just not clear how "the play" is going to play out. And while José Miguel Insulza stated that he did not make this trip to Honduras to "gauge public opinion," it is becoming more evident that the pro-Zelaya forces and the pro-coup govt. are continuing to vie for public opinion.

In today's NYT, here's some of the latest:

<blockquote>"...The top envoy for the Americas, José Miguel Insulza, got a close-up view of the bitter political divide in Honduras. Amid street protests that drew tens of thousands of people on both sides of the issue, he met with many of the country’s political and judicial leaders, from whom he heard vigorous defenses of the military operation that removed Mr. Zelaya last Sunday.

Mr. Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States, did not come here to gauge public opinion, however charged. Rather, he shuttled between closed-door meetings with the same stern message from the organization’s 33 other participating countries: if Mr. Zelaya was not returned to office by Saturday, Honduras would be expelled from the group and possibly face sanctions..." </blockquote>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/world/americas/04honduras.html?th=&amp;emc=th&amp;pagewanted=print />
"Envoy Seeks Ousted President's Return"

The OEA is meeting as we speak--mainly defining what sanctions will be leveled at the coup govt. of Micheletti, including a diplomat from Canada. Main thrust from Nicaragua is that neither the Nicaraguans nor the Venezuelans fostered this crisis--which has been rumored by the coup "interim" govt. The coup govt. has now tried to trump the Zelaya and international forces, and said they are pulling out of the OEA. A ver...

Meanwhile, footage shown on CNN International in English and CNN en español--(although I can't find a link), only the article below from <i>Huffington Post</i>--however, Zelaya supporters (who clearly consist mainly of workers and campesinos) amassed so many demonstrators at the airport for a "trial run" for tomorrow, that they outnumbered the military police, and the police ended up backing off.

The higher-ups in the Catholic Church (Archbishop Rodriguez spokesperson) have weighed in on the side of Micheletti--surprise, surprise--warning of a bloodbath--HOWEVER, it was reported that there were many priests among the anti-coup, Zelaya forces in the various demonstrations, including today's prep demo near the airport.

Here's the most recent from H.P.:

<blockquote>"Zelaya called on supporters to prepare to greet him at the airport on Sunday, and on Saturday more than 10,000 of them gathered near the heavily guarded presidential palace and pledged they would be ready if he returned.

"...Zelaya called on supporters to prepare to greet him at the airport on Sunday, and on Saturday more than 10,000 of them gathered near the heavily guarded presidential palace and pledged they would be ready if he returned.

"We are going to show up at the Honduras International Airport in Tegucigalpa ... and on Sunday we will be in Tegucigalpa," Zelaya said in a taped statement posted on the Web sites of the Telesur and Cubadebate media outlets.

"In comments later Saturday to a local radio station, Zelaya said Argentine President Cristina Fernandez and Ecuador's Rafael Correa, several foreign ministers and 300 journalists would accompany him."</blockquote>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/04/honduras-pulls-out-of-oas_n_225684.html

"Honduras pulls out of OAS, refuses to Restore Zelaya"

Zelaya has arrived in Honduras, still on board the plane. There are thousands demonstrating in support of Zelaya, and against the coup. Meanwhile, the "interim" reactionary government is holding a press conference, with emphasis on their international relations, which they are saying shouldn't be effected by their internal situation.

If people want to watch this live -- en vivo -- check out this website--Telesur (this coverage coming from Venezuela):

http://www.theinternationaltv.com/venezuela/telesur.php

However, if anyone thinks that Zelaya is some revolutionary, or Marxist, I want to point out that over the last 24 hours, he has both talked about "el pueblo" (the people of Honduras) in the same breath as how this struggle is connected with el sangre de Cristo...Christ's blood, and his allegiance not only to the people, but to god.

Hell, Chavez crosses himself before every hours long speeches.

And...it is rumored that Nicaragua has amassed its troops on the border...supposedly (!) threatening to invade Honduras. Micheletti is saying this is a "psychological invasion" and threat.

Tell me this is just a struggle limited to Honduras...someone on another thread originally asked, "What's the big deal?"

Well, so far two deaths at the hands of the "peaceful" military police...

hope people look and listen to Telesur en vivo, link above...

This is a video from CNN, showing Zelaya supporters at the airport waiting for his return and confronting the military. The reporter states that Zelaya's base is overwhelmingly working class, while the military backs the business elite.

Embedded video from <a href="/http://www.cnn.com/video" rel="nofollow">CNN Video</a>

not that I exactly get all the embedded talk, but the venezuelan link telesur is in the background right now so i don't think that is embedded.

CNN in English is broadcasting about this right now...CNN en español has been on top of this--más o menos--all day.

Right now Zelaya is pretty much trapped on his plane, with the military keeping him at bay, while thousands have amassed right outside the airport...as I said before, two people (or one?) have been killed already.

But here's something I was thinking about--especially as I was listening to Chavez go on and on a few minutes ago:

There was much controversy among the OEA as to whether or not Zelaya should in fact return to Honduras. There were some (Mexico, Paraguay, Colombia, etc.) pushing for more dialogue first. Zelaya ignored those forces...(Kirchner from Argentina kept changing her mind as to whether or not to accompany Zelaya). But I think Zelaya took a more militant pose--am sure he knew full well that things were "gonna get ugly" even though he kept calling for peaceful demos. And now what his attempt at return to Honduras has done is to force the hand of the coup govt. more, and expose them more to the people.

It has been said on all the channels reporting on this that over 60% of the Honduran people live below poverty level, and the struggle has clearly become one of "between the haves and have nots, between the working class and the "business elite."

It's a little confusing, but I think that Zelaya is now leaving Honduras for Nicaragua, and now reported that the "manifestantes" are dispersing. Think the thing to be watching is the political (and economic) effects today is going to have over the next few days. Even though it appears that the coup govt. stopped Zelaya from returning, they didn't exactly capture the sympathy of the people, and it is looking like those sitting on the fence are being forced to take sides. (It is notable that the coup government did not stage any demos in support of their govt. today...they must have anticipated that they were sitting on a powderkeg!)

And as pointed out in one of the frenetic reports on Telesur--since Honduras has a population of only 8 million people, what some of the demonstrators were doing was appealing to their various relatives and neighbors, who were part of the military, to change sides.

If some want to read some analysis of the contradictoriness, and problematic machinations (both former and current) of the U.S. govt. in this situation as well as in Latin America (in particular Venezuela), plus the relation bet. Honduras and the U.S. during the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, here's an interesting piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/latin-america-drags-a-rel_b_224383.html

originally published by <i>Guardian Limited</i>

"Latin America Drags a Reluctant Washington into Supporting Democracy in Honduras"

In case some of you thought the struggle against the coup d'êtat in Honduras was a done deal, check out this video from today's <i>La Jornada</i>.

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/08/08/index.php

Video: "Miles de hondureños en marcha nacional de resistencia popular"

plus other related videos

All this time there has been back and forth, attempts at "negotiations" (proposals spearheaded by Arias of Costa Rica) between the golpe de estado government (Micheletti)and the Organization of American States, and Zelaya. But little news about the people demonstrating their anger, except at the Nicaraguan border when Zelaya crossed over for a few minutes. (There were several people gathered in protest, but kept away from the border by military police.)Now, instead of the staged rallies by the Micheletti forces, we're seeing more organized demonstrations by the people who are resisting the coup and demanding the return of Zelaya.