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