Alternatives To the Collapsed WTO Doha Round Talks -
by Stephen Lendman

On July 24, 2006, World Trade Organization (WTO)
Director-General Pascal Lamy was forced to halt the
five years of negotiating of the so-called Fourth WTO
Ministerial Doha Round that began in Doha, Qatar in
November, 2001 and ended (for now, at least) in
Geneva, Switzerland.  The talks had been ongoing to
strike a trade deal but broke down because the US, as
usual, demanded all take and little give in return
expecting it could strong-arm developing nations to
accept whatever it proposed as it’s always been able
to do in the past. 

No longer, apparently, as nations with growing clout
like Brazil, India and others justifiably refused to
knuckle under.  Even European (EU) Trade Commissioner
and US ally, Peter Mandelson expressed his ire when he
accused the US of trying to exact a “disproportionate”
price from developing countries.  He added: “Surely
the richest and strongest nation in the world, with
the highest standards of living, can afford to give as
well as take.”  Mandelson is right, of course, but he
also understands the US considers itself the de facto
ruler of the world and claims the right in that status
to make all the rules and expect all other nations to
agree to and obey them.  It wasn’t to be this time in
Geneva and may never be again as a growing number of
nations are fed up with Washington’s notion of trade
that’s “free” in words but never “fair” in fact.  The
tone of frustration was expressed by India’s Commerce
and Industry Minister in his concluding comment that
Doha is “definitely between intensive care and the
crematorium.”  He and others thought it would be
months to years before further talks could be
restarted and likely never again on same basis as the
current round that broke down.

That basis is the same business as usual one when the
US is involved - promise them (the developing nations)
everything, or at least an equitable arrangement for
rich and poor countries alike, but in the end deliver
little or nothing.  It’s just another example of US
duplicity and disingenuousness as the initial Doha
declaration promised that the rich nations would make
most of the concessions and the poorest ones would
need make few or none.  It never happened, and the
biggest obstacle was over farm subsidies so important
to developing world countries that need protection
for the major part of their economy along with ease of
access to the US and European Union (EU) to assure
growth.  The US and EU made no teeth proposals to end
their agricultural subsidies by 2013, but less
developed countries rejected the kind of vague
forked-tongue language the US especially has used
before which in the end always failed to deliver what
it promised. 

A clear example of the kind of trade agreement the US
wants is reflected in its subsidies to cotton farmers
the WTO ruled illegal last year.  Despite the ruling,
the US did nothing to bring the subsidies into
compliance, and Brazil may now ask the WTO to allow it
to impose $1 billion in punitive duties on US imports
in compensation.  Brazil and other countries may also
have justifiable rice, soybean and other crop claims
against the US.  Uruguay has complained about unfair
US rice subsidies depressing world prices, and Oxfam
International charged that these illegal subsidies,
valued at $1.2 billion a year, hurt rice farmers in a
dozen countries.

Call it just more of the “same old US same old.”  A
key provision of the Doha “development round” clearly
shows it.  With a backdrop of high-sounding language
promising to help poor countries grow their way out of
poverty by granting them greater access for their
goods, the EU extended the “Everything but Arms”
initiative (EBA) under which it would unilaterally
open its markets to developing countries.  That was
before the US hypocritically muddied things up by
purportedly agreeing to a 97% opening of its markets
to the developing world. These countries were
initially disappointed with the original EBA
initiative, and the EU promised to address their
concerns to reach a more equitable compromise.  US
intentions, however, were quite different.  While
using market-opening language, the US, in fact,
proposed just the opposite by claiming the right to
choose a different 3% exclusion for each country to
rig the deal to end up allowing developing countries
the right to freely export everything but what they
produce.  So while they can freely export aircraft,
jet engines, supercomputers and computer chips, they
can’t have free access for their agricultural
products, processed foods or textiles.  Hardly a fair
trade initiative, and one sensible trade ministers
would never accept.  They didn’t.

The net result is that the 3% EBA initiative is just
another disingenuous multilateral trade scheme
corrupted by US undermining to unfairly give this
dominant country free access to world developing
markets without having to grant equivalent access here
in return.  Based on the outcome in Geneva, developing
countries, led by those with the most clout, no longer
are buying it and walked away.  They did it before at
Cancun in 2003 and no doubt will stand firm in any
future WTO negotiations.

A Disturbing Cloud on A World Trade Silver Lining

At the same time developing nations are resisting
sweeping trade deals like Doha, some of them are
agreeing to bilateral ones with the US with terms just
as unacceptable as the WTO ones they rejected.  So far
the following countries have agreed to such “free
trade agreements” with the US or are in the process of
negotiating them:  Australia, Chile, Peru, Colombia,
Panama, Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Malaysia, Vietnam
(seeking WTO admission), Morocco, Oman, Korea,
Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), and the Central American nations
included under the Dominican Republic Central American
Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) of the Dominican
Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua
and Costa Rica (the only CAFTA country that hasn’t so
far approved the agreement).

In addition, and less publicized, there are other
agreements in place and being negotiated under various
names like the so-called US-India Knowledge Initiative
in Agriculture that gives US giants like Monsanto free
access to the Indian market for their GMO products
ravaging Indian farmers since gaining entry and
causing thousands of suicides among them because of
onerous debts they were forced to assume that ended up
killing them; Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland for
wheat at unaffordable prices increasing hunger and
malnutrition and destroying the lives of still more
small farmers; and the king of giants - Walmart - that
wants to dominate the Indian retail market, and if
successful, will do to thousands of small retailers in
the country what Monsanto alone did to its small
farmers. 

By using the tactic of one-on-one negotiations, the US
is showing it’s not standing pat in the face of
overall trade defeat that first erupted on the streets
of Seattle in 1999, began in earnest in direct talks
in Cancun in 2003 and culminated with the collapse of
those talks in Geneva in July.  It’s trying to
overcome it by undermining the unity of the developing
world one nation at a time and do it with selective
agreements covering products and services it’s able to
get its negotiating partners to agree on.  In the case
of India that stood firm against a sweeping Doha
agreement, it’s clear that country so far has been
willing to trade away its food and retail small
business security for whatever benefits it hopes to
gain in return that when dealing with the US may turn
out to be meager at best. 

It’s too early to know how successful this US strategy
will be over time, but so far it’s had enough success
to show developing nations determined to hold their
ground that their battle to do it has just begun, and
it won’t be easy prevailing in the end.  Nonetheless,
the ones willing to resist US bullying tactics have
decided, so far at least, that sweeping agreements on
US one-way terms are unacceptable.  At most, they’ll
go for a limited one hoping for some expected gain in
return for what they have to give up.  So the bottom
line thus far is that while Doha is either dead or on
life support, so-called US-style “free trade” is very
much alive and thriving.

Alternatives to the WTO Doha Round

Despite US trade ingenuity and chicanery to turn
defeat into partial victory, challenges to its
dominance have emerged showing a spirit of resistance
and unwillingness to continue the old corrupted
one-way neoliberal way of doing things that’s little
more than a race to the bottom.  That spirit wanting
change is more alive in Latin America than anywhere
else, even though so far it’s more hope than reality.
Still, for the first time, more people in the region
are fed up having to live under the oppressive heel of
US dominance and are inspired by what’s happening in
Venezuela to overcome it and beginning in Bolivia as
well.  Call it a start, but all great social movements
have modest beginnings.  There’s never a guarantee how
far they’ll go, and many just fade away or are
destroyed by those of privilege using their power to
do what they know how to do best - remove all threats
to the interests of capital by whatever means it takes
to do it.

That battle is now being waged in Venezuela against
its democratically elected President, Hugo Chavez and
his Movement for the Fifth Republic Party (MVR).
Chavez was first elected in December, 1998 and from
the start created the beginnings of a new mass social
and political Bolivarian revolution based on
participatory democracy and social justice.
Privileged “sifrinos” and the corporate ruling class
in the country aren’t happy with the way things are
now and have engaged the Chavez government in
confrontation relentlessly since he came into office.
Those forces have a strong ally in the Bush
administration that’s done all it can to aid them and
continues to relentlessly.

The reason is because of all Chavez has done to help
his overwhelmingly poor people emerge from their
desperate state and have the essential social services
and other help they need.  He’s accomplished much in a
short time despite everything done to subvert him by
powerful and determined internal rogue elements and
the far more hostile threat from the huge shadow cast
on his government from Washington that’s tried and
failed three times to oust him and now is planning a
fourth attempt that may include an armed assault and
invasion and likely attempt to assassinate him as
well. 

Chavez began in 1999 by drafting a new constitution
that was put to a nationwide referendum and
overwhelmingly approved by the Venezuelan people.  It
established the principle of participatory democracy
for all Venezuelans, mandated quality health care and
education, housing, an improved social security
pension system for seniors, free speech, rights for
indigenous people and banned discrimination.  Chavez
is revered by the great majority of his people because
of all he’s done for them since taking office in 1999.
He currently enjoys an approval rating of over 80%
and likely will have no trouble remaining President
when he runs again for reelection in December unless
an attempt is made to remove him from office forcibly
before then that succeeds.  Chavez is well aware of
the threat against him and is doing all he can to
prevent it.

ALBA - The Bolivarian Alternative to the Fourth WTO
Ministerial Doha Round

Hugo Chavez is pursuing his progressive agenda abroad
as well as at home.  Key to it is his alternative to
the US dominated WTO neoliberal type trade agreements
that are called “free” but aren’t “fair.”  The ones
now in force under mandated WTO trade rules along
with IMF and World Bank imposed structural adjustments
and privatizations of state industries have caused
growing poverty and human misery throughout the
developing world.  The harmful one-way trade rules are
in place for agriculture, services under GATS,
intellectual property under TRIPS, and the mostly
unpassed corporate wish list from hell covered under
MAI that would establish a single global economy run
by these corporate giants.  Led by the US and its
giant transnational companies, the goal of these
agreements is to establish a supranational “economic
constitution” based on WTO mandated rules of global
trade that would override the sovereignty of member
states - in other words, to establish a global
constitution with a binding set of trade rules
favoring rich countries and giant corporations
allowing them the right to dominate world markets and
exploit developing nations and ordinary people
everywhere for their benefit.

Hugo Chavez has opted out of this corrupted system
with his alternative plan called ALBA or the
Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas.  It’s
impressive goal is to achieve a comprehensive
integration among Latin American countries to develop
“the social state” that will benefit ordinary people.
It’s far different than the WTO structured deals
explained above that only benefit large corporations
and wealthy nations at the expense of developing ones
and all people everywhere.  ALBA is bold and
innovative and based on the principles of
complementarity, not competition; solidarity, not
domination; cooperation, not exploitation; and respect
for each participating nation’s sovereignty free from
the control of other nations and giant corporations.

Chavez hopes ALBA will unite participating nations in
solidarity to benefit the people in them by providing
essential goods and services, achieve real economic
growth at the grassroots and improve the lives of
ordinary people by reducing and one day eliminating
poverty.  A key feature of the plan is the exchange of
goods and services outside the usual international
banking and corporate trading system.  For example,
Venezuela has exchanged Venezuelan oil and building
materials with Cuba paid for in kind by Cuba, in turn,
sending 20,000 doctors to work in medical clinics and
hospitals in the barrios plus staffing literacy
programs to teach Venezuelans to read and write. 

Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba have also agreed on an
ALBA and People’s Trade Agreement that will operate on
the same basis.  The agreements contain many articles
and provisions of complementarity and mutually
beneficial exchanges that will benefit all three
countries and their people and also work with other
Latin American countries to help them eradicate
illiteracy using the methods that have virtually
eliminated it in Venezuela and Cuba.  Compare what’s
been accomplished in those two countries with limited
resources to the US where the Department of Education
in the richest country in the world estimates over 20%
of the population to be functionally illiterate.  That
startling and shameful fact is but one of many
noteworthy testimonies to the failure of the so-called
neoliberal “free market” race to the bottom model the
US wants to export to all other nations and do it by
force if necessary.

The Mercosur Alternative

Mercosur, or the Southern Common Market, is a much
less impressive and radical alternative to the WTO
model than is ALBA.  It’s a customs union comprising
Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and most recently
in July, 2006 Venezuela as a formal member.  It was
founded in 1991 by the Treaty of Asuncion and amended
by the Treaty of Ouro Preto in 1994.  Mercosur was
formed to promote free trade in goods and services
among its member Latin American states that also
include Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru as
associate members as well as Mexico in temporary
observer status prior to becoming an associate member.

As a functioning trade body, Mercosur is far different
than ALBA.  It was never meant to be an alternative to
the dominant WTO model but rather to be complimentary
to it.  It was formed by and represents the ruling
class of its Latin American member states that have
long been dominated by the Global North.  They
believed by unifying into a regional trade block, they
would have more negotiating clout in combination than
each one could have acting separately.  Despite the
standoff at Cancun in 2003 and the just failed Doha
round in Geneva, its results have been mixed at best
in its dealings with the US primarily.  Even as a more
powerful regional trading block, these nations haven’t
been able to get the US to soften its negotiating
position in trade talks and thus be willing to offer
fairer terms, especially on products most important to
each Latin country. 

The failed Doha round especially proved that, but it
also proved that when developing nations stand firm
together, they can hold their own, bring talks with
the US to a standstill, and prove they mean business
and no longer are willing to cut one-way deals hurting
themselves.  So maybe after three years of failing to
get its way in spite of all the pressure the US can
bring to bear, Washington may finally be getting the
message.  But with the hardline Bush administration
still in charge moving ahead boldly with bilateral
deals, that possibility may only be wishful thinking.

Enter Venezuela into Mercosur

On July 21, Venezuela formally became the fifth member
of Mercosur making this body the world’s third largest
economic bloc and adding to the strength of Latin
American unity that may better enable it to hold its
own in future trade negotiations with the US and other
dominant Global North nations.  Hugo Chavez joined
this alternative trade bloc just months after
withdrawing from the Andean Community of Nations (CAN)
pact in April, 2006 in response to CAN members
Colombia and Peru signing Free Trade Agreements with
the US.  The benefits of Venezuela’s addition are
significant, and Hugo Chavez signaled it by saying:
“We are entering a new stage of Mercosur.”  He went on
to add: “Latin America has all it needs to become a
great world power (he didn’t mean a military one).
Let’s not put any limits on our dreams.  Let’s make
them reality.”  Chavez’s words were backed up by
Brazil’s President Lula da Silva when he added “no one
is talking anymore (about the US-backed) FTAA.”  And
Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner added emphasis
with his comment that “Democracy, human rights,
liberty and the fight against poverty (are the basis
for) a new world order.”  In his comments, Hugo Chavez
was expressing his hope that with the addition of his
country and likely other nations to follow, Mercosur
would take more steps to “prioritize social concerns”
and begin a process of no longer being beholden solely
to “the old elitist corporate models” that put profits
ahead of people needs.  Hopefully, to some degree at
least, Lula and Kirchner were expressing the same
sentiment.  So far though in their own style of
governance, these two leaders differ markedly from
Hugo Chavez and mostly follow the neoliberal “free
market” rules prescribed by the US that the corporate
giants benefit from.

But those leaders as well as those from Uruguay and
Paraguay got a hint of what their people want at the
summit when social activists representing the interest
of labor, the environment, women’s issues, human
rights, and campesinos marched on the streets in
solidarity with demonstrators of left-wing parties to
present their progressive alternative proposals for
regional integration to the Mercosur leaders.  The
street event marked the close of the summit at which
the Peoples’ Summit for Sovereignty and Integration
ran for the first time parallel to a Mercosur summit
meeting.  The Peoples’ agenda addressed issues that
included anti-poverty measures, indigenous peoples’
rights and demands, the protection of natural
resources, investment in education, trade
liberalization and matters of concern to women.

Participating organizations prepared a final document
that proclaimed “South America is entering a new era,”
and they intend to create and fight for an alternative
plan to the failed neoliberal so-called “free market”
ones they reject.  They made their goals clear
stating: “No to free trade agreements and yes to
peoples’ integration.  No to foreign debt and to
meddling by the international financial institutions.
Yes to economic independence. No to militarization,
yes to self-determination.  No to hunger and poverty,
yes to better distribution of wealth.”

Those attending also rejected a US Senate initiative
to create a counter-terrorism organization in the
tri-border area connecting Argentina, Brazil and
Paraguay, demanded Latin American UN MINUSTAH “blue
helmet” so-called “peacekeepers” (that, in fact, serve
as thuggish enforcers) be withdrawn from Haiti, and
protested against the illegal US war against Iraq and
the joint US-Israeli equally illegal ones against
Lebanon and Palestine.  This is likely to be a taste
of further protest activism to come with various NGO
groups representing ordinary people demanding their
political leaders address the vital issues of greatest
concern to them.  With Hugo Chavez as a formal
Mercosur member and already governing that way in
Venezuela, these groups have an important regional
leader as an ally who’ll back and help them by
addressing their needs and advocating Mercosur nations
adopt them.

Chavez and Mercosur have already had one notable
achievement last November when Venezuela successfully
led the opposition that thwarted the US’s attempt to
conclude its Free Trade of the Americas agreement
(FTAA) with South American countries.  It’s very
likely FTAA is now dead, and the US may only attempt
to resurrect it in bilateral form to get the best
deals it can, even ones less acceptable to its giant
corporations that would rather have all they get
bilaterally than nothing at all resulting from the
demise of FTAA.

The US task, however, will be all the harder with the
addition of Venezuela as a full Mercosur member.  The
country has clout and intends to use it.  Besides its
immense oil reserves Chavez is willing to share
equitably on an ALBA-type arrangement with his trading
partners, Venezuela is South America’s third largest
economy after Brazil and Argentina.  It’s addition to
Mercosur means this trade bloc now has a combined
market of 250 million people and a total output of
$1,000,000,000,000 ($1 trillion) in goods and services
annually - 75% of the continent’s GDP.  Further, with
its associate members and possible addition of Mexico
(especially if Lopez Obrador manages to assume the
office of President he won but so far has been
denied), Mercosur is poised to become even larger and
more powerful.  At the Mercosur summit on July 20 - 21
in Cordoba, Argentina, Chavez called for Bolivia and
Cuba to be included in the trade bloc.  Bolivia
already is an associate member, and in a clear
rejection of how the US treats Cuba with its 45
year-old embargo aimed at trying to topple Fidel
Castro, Mercosur nations just concluded an Economic
Complementation Accord with the island state designed
to eliminate tariffs and boost complementary trade.

Mercosur’s growing strength is more political than
economic, and therein hopefully lies its clout.  It
can’t compete in size with the Global North or any
trade bloc with the US as a member.  As impressive as
its market size and combined GDP numbers are, they’re
quite small compared to the three nation NAFTA bloc
dominated by the US that has 450 million people in it
and a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $14
trillion.  But just as the Hezbollah resistance
humbled the mighty Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) fourth
most powerful military in the world by its resilience,
so too might economically small Mercosur hold its own
in its dealings with its powerful and dominant
northern neighbor - especially with some help from
other developing nations like India, China and Russia
that are also unwilling to trade across the board on
any basis they consider unfair and are getting away
with it when determined to do it. 

Recent Russian muscle-flexing is an example of how one
nation is able to stand up to the US successfully.
Relations between the two countries have been frosty
for some time, and as a result the Bush administration
blocked Russia’s desired entry into the WTO.  In
return, Russian President Vladimir Putin retaliated by
denying US oil giants Chevron and Conoco-Phillips the
right to develop oil and gas fields in the Barents
Sea.  Putin also cemented a relationship with US
nemesis Hugo Chavez by concluding an arms deal
involving 24 advanced Russian fighter jets, 53
helicopters, and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles in
addition to discussing the possibility of Russia
becoming involved in building an oil pipeline in
Venezuela.

In addition, Russia earlier joined in an important
energy alliance in 2001 with China, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan called the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that
reportedly will shortly include Iran as a full member
because of the Persian state’s vast energy reserves so
important to the other members, especially China.  The
intent of this alliance appears to be an effort to
counter US attempts to control the hydrocarbon-rich
Eurasian/Caspian Basin region and establish its own
foothold in this vital part of the world.  The SCO may
be looking to add still another new member to its
alliance after the CIA instigated fake 2004-05 “orange
revolution” installed Ukrainian President Viktor
Yushchenko was forced to accept pro-Russian Viktor
Yanukovich as his Prime Minister on August 3.  The CIA
election tactic “coup” robbed Yanukovich of the
presidency he won, and he now may look to get even by
moving Ukraine into the Russian orbit dealing the US
another defeat as opposition alliances gain in
strength at the expense of the ruler of the world
wannabe that looks a little vulnerable.

The US may face still further obstacles as Russia,
China and Iran have announced or signaled their
intentions to shift a portion of their dollar reserves
away from the US currency into others like the euro.
Russia also plans to make its ruble convertible into
the other major currencies, and Iran intends to open
an oil bourse, (its scheduled opening now delayed
several times) and sell at least part of its oil in
euros.  China, in fact, just did it by opening its
Shanghai Petroleum Exchange on August 18, began
trading in gasoline, announced bitumen, methanol and
glycol will follow and soon thereafter will trade in
other petroleum and chemical products including crude
and refined oil and liquified gas.  The announcement
didn’t mention what currency trading would be done in,
but likely initially at least it will be in the
Chinese yuan with possible euro trading to follow. 

If China, Russia, and Iran ally to reduce their dollar
holdings, trade oil in euros, rubles and/or other
non-dollar currencies and can get other oil producing
states to join with them and do the same like
Venezuela, it will pose a serious threat to US
dominance in the region as well as undermine it’s
position as the world’s economic leader.  It will also
increase world instability, as the US won’t stand pat
in the face of actions it sees as a challenge to its
preeminence or anything that may harm its economy.
Nonetheless, it shows what’s possible when enough
nations join together to counter the hostile effects
of US dominance in trade and all else.  In alliance
these nations have strength in numbers, may attract
others to join with them and thus be able to hold
their own against US hegemony, weaken it significantly
in the process, and end up negating whatever steps the
US may attempt to fight back.

The Lesson Learned May Be Resist and Ye Shall Succeed

To prevail, it’s just a matter of enough nations
joining in their common self-interest to find out how
successful they may be if they try.  It’s like the old
story of the schoolyard bully who’s able to get away
with beating up on weaker kids until one or more fight
back, strike a telling blow, and get away with it.  At
that point, the game is up, and the bully knows his
bullying days are over.  Others picked on know they
too can fight back,  some will if picked on, and
bullies only like picking on the ones who won’t.  It’s
the same story with nations as with schoolyard
bullies.  The developing world can put down the US
bully if enough of them in it refuse to be pushed
around any more, join together for added strength and
fight back. 

History is on their side as the US seems to be
repeating the same fatal errors all other dominant
empires in the past did that overreached and paid for
it with their own demise.  Grandiose imperial plans
and dreams and super weapons to back them up are no
insulation against the rest of the world determined to
resist them.  That’s what Yale Senior Research Scholar
Immanuel Wallerstein believes in his 2003 book The
Decline of American Power.  In it he said the US “has
been a fading global power since the 1970s, and the US
response to the (9/11) terrorist attacks has
accelerated this decline…...the economic, political
and military factors that contributed to US hegemony
are the same factors that will inexorably produce the
coming US decline.”  Retired professor Chalmers
Johnson also predicts the dissolution of the US empire
if present trends continue.  He outlines a disturbing
scenario in his 2004 book Sorrows of Empire including
a “state of perpetual war,” a loss of democracy, and
the US going bankrupt because of its inability to
maintain its “grandiose military projects.”  The
conclusion is the US is acting recklessly and
imprudently like all other dominant empires before it
and is increasingly vulnerable as a result.  It just
remains for enough other nations joining together in a
common purpose for them likely to be able to achieve
what they set out to do.

It’s already happening with positive results that
holds promise of resonating and inspiring others in
the developing world to join the struggle for their
own rights.  It happens in schoolyards, and it’s now
beginning to happen in global trade.  It may just be a
matter of time before the fight is carried to the
larger issues of war and peace, social equity and
global justice.  All that’s needed to advance the ball
are a few more dedicated leaders like Hugo Chavez and
Bolivia’s Evo Morales combined with enough good people
acting with courage and determination on their own
behalf throughout the developing world to spread their
message of resistance, ignite it into a raging
bonfire, and extend it to others willing to join the
fight for the possible big reward of a better world.
That may be happening now on the streets of Mexico as
millions there are rallying behind their candidate
Lopez Obrador so far denied by electoral fraud of the
office of President he clearly won.  Win or lose,
their voices are being heard in Mexico and throughout
the region.  Their resonance may inspire others to
battle as courageously for the social equity and
justice they too deserve.

Hugo Chavez is on a mission to help them by trying to
build unity among developing nations to “confront the
great challenges of this imperialist neo-liberal era.”
As part of it, he just concluded a whirlwind tour of
seven nations including Russia, Iran, Vietnam,
Belarus, Mali and Benin, and beginning August 22 he’ll
spend a week in China (his fourth visit there) to
strike energy and investment deals and try to build
political support with this important Asian country in
need of the oil Venezuela can supply it.  Chavez and
his allies know how important these alliances are, and
if they can convince enough other nations to join with
them their strength in combination may give them the
power they need to challenge US dominance and end its
bullying days forever.  For now it’s just a glorious
dream.  But isn’t that the way all great social
movements begin?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  Also visit his blog
site at sjlendman.blogspot.com