The Group of 77 and China consists of 133 nations of the South.  It was formed on June 15, 1964 by 77 nations at the end of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, with the intention of promoting South-South cooperation and attending to their common problems of underdevelopment, a legacy of an international order established by colonial domination.  China joined the group in 1991. The organization provides the possibility for the neocolonized peoples of the world to define a common approach to the issues that humanity confronts, in an environment that is freed from the interferences, manipulations, and pressures of the global powers.

      The Group of 77 held its first South Summit in Havana in April 2000 and the second South Summit in Doha in June 2005. At these summits, as expressed by its 2014 Declaration,

     On June 15-16, 2014, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the Group of 77 and China held an Extraordinary Summit in commemoration of its fiftieth anniversary.  Inasmuch as Bolivia is the current president of the Group of 77, the Summit was noteworthy for the presence of the perspective of the indigenous peoples of America and for the visibility of Evo Morales, who has emerged as one of the principal charismatic leaders in the emerging process of Latin American and Caribbean unity and integration.  See “Speech by Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, on the occasion of the transfer of the presidency of the G77 and China to Bolivia” (New York, January 8, 2014).

      The Extraordinary Summit issued a Declaration with 242 points that represent a consensus among the neocolonized peoples of the world.  The Declaration affirms the importance of the right of sovereignty to the nations of the South, including the right to control natural resources in accordance with a national development plan.

     The Declaration implicitly rejects the policy of the United States to impose its model of democracy on the world, to interfere in the political affairs of nations, and to distort information concerning political practices in nations.

     The Declaration also calls for the eradication of poverty, the reduction of inequality, and the protection of the social and economic rights of the people; sustainable development and the protection of the Earth, addressing such issues as climate change, biological diversity, deforestation, and desertification; the full and equal participation of women, gender equality, and programs of action with respect to violence against women and girls in all of its forms; the “rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, natural resources, identity and culture;” debt cancellation and debt restructuring; reform of the global financial architecture; and reform of the United Nations.

     The Declaration demands “the immediate and full withdrawal of Israel, the occupying Power, from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967 and from the remaining Lebanese occupied land.” And it calls for “the Government of the United States of America to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba, which, in addition to being unilateral and contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and international law, as well as to the principle of neighborliness, causes huge material losses and economic damage to the people of Cuba.”

      For a full English version of the Declaration, go to: “Group of 77 Final Declaration 2014.”

     The Group of 77 and China, having arrived at a consensus with respect to fundamental problems that humanity confronts, recognizes that its greatest challenge is to induce the global powers to listen to its consensual voice.  It has arrived at the understanding that unity is indispensable for the attainment of the new international order that it seeks to create.

     In his address to the Extraordinary Summit, Raúl Castro stressed the theme of unity, maintaining that “only unity will enable our ample majority to prevail.”  He joined with others in calling for a new international order.  See “Address by Raúl Castro Ruz, Summit of the Group of 77 and China, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, June 15, 2004.”

Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Group of 77, G-77, Evo Morales, Raúl Castro

     The new political reality that has emerged in Latin America since 1995 was evident at the forty-fourth General Assembly of the Organization of America States, held in Asunción, Paraguay from June 3 to June 5, 1914. 

     The Organization of American States (OAS) was created in 1948 as the culmination of the US effort to institutionalize the cooperation of the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean  in the neocolonial world-system (“Pan-Americanism and OAS” 10/2/2013).  At the time, the United States was entering the phase of the height of its economic, financial, military, and international political power.  Accordingly, it was able to overcome Latin American resistance to the US-directed Pan American project that it had encountered from 1889 to 1942.  In 1954, the United States was able to include an anti-communist clause: “OAS declared that communist activity constitutes an intervention in the internal affairs of the Americas and affirmed that the installation of a communist regime in any state in the Western Hemisphere would imply a threat to the system, which would require an advisory meeting to adopt measures” (Regalado 2007:127).  The United States invoked this clause to expel socialist Cuba in 1961.  As we have seen, anti-communism was an ideology that distorted reality and that sought to legitimate attacks on nations that sought an autonomous road to development (see “The ideology of anti-communism” 5/27/2014).  In 1991, when the United States was in the waning moments of its hegemony, but appeared to be at the height of its power following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was able to reinforce the exclusion of Cuba from OAS, by establishing representative democracy as the only legitimate form of government, thus denying the legitimacy of Cuban popular democracy.

     For the most part, however, OAS has not functioned as an instrument of US domination.  The United States has tended to ignore the organization and to impose its imperialist policies unilaterally.  But neither did the Latin American and Caribbean nations use OAS as a forum to criticize US policy.  When the Latin American and Caribbean challenge to US neocolonial domination emerged following 1995, nations leading the process of change tended to develop their own regional organizations, such as ALBA, UNASUR, and CELAC (see “Latin American union and integration” 3/13/2014; “The Declaration of Havana 2014” 3/14/2014). Now, however, the alternative world-system emerging through the leadership of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba, with the participation of Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, Uruguay and others, has penetrated the world of OAS.

      It is a reversal of its intended function.  The United States intended for it to legitimate its neocolonial control, but OAS now has emerged to provide diplomatic space to the neocolonized nations that seek to break the neocolonial relation.  This transformation of functions was first visible in 2009, when OAS rescinded the expulsion of Cuba from the organization. 

     The clearest sign of the transformation of OAS at its Forty-fourth General Assembly was the repeated interventions by representatives concerning an item that was not on the agenda: the exclusion of Cuba from the Summit of the Americas.  The first Summit of the Americas was held in 1994, and it was intended as the launching pad of the US proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (see “The fall of FTAA” 3/7/2014).  By 2005, it had become clear that FTAA could not be implemented, as a result of opposition from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela.  At the Fifth Summit of the Americas in 2009, opposition to the exclusion of Cuba from the summits began to be expressed.  Such opposition was expressed with increasing firmness at the Sixth Summit of the Americas in 2012, the Eighth Political Council of ALBA in 2012, the Fourth Ministerial Meeting of CARICOM-CUBA of 2013, and the Council of Ministers of Foreign Relations of UNASUR in 2014.  The rejection of the exclusion of Cuba from the Summit of the Americas was unanimously declared at the Second Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in January 2014.  At the Forty-fourth General Assembly of  OAS, many delegations rejected the inclusion of Cuba from the summits.  Five nations (Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina), stated that they would not attend the next Summit of the Americas, if Cuba remains excluded.

     Besides rejection of US policy with respect to Cuba, the Forty-fourth assembly passed other declarations that indicate that OAS is beginning to function as a diplomatic voice for the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean.  It supported Argentina in its conflict with Britain over the status of the Malvinas Islands.  It called upon the international community to not engage in pressure or sanctions with respect to Venezuela, thus criticizing US support of the Venezuelan Right and an anti-government media campaign.  It supported the peace talks between FARC and the government of Venezuela, presently taking place in Cuba.  It declared America as a Zone of Peace, Cooperation, and the Peaceful Solution of Conflicts.  It condemned the use of torture in secret prisons in the name of national security and the struggle against terrorism, thus indirectly condemning the US base at Guantanamo.

       The United States is no longer the economic and financial power that it was in the 1950s.  It is a hegemonic nation in decline.  It can no longer impose its political agenda on Latin America.  An alternative to the neocolonial world-system is emerging from below.   


References

Gómez, Sergio Alejandro.  2014.  “44 Asamlea General de la OEA:  EE.UU. cada vez más solo en su intento de aislar a Cuba” Granma (9 de junio de 2014), Pág. 5.

Regalado, Roberto.  2007.  Latin America at the Crossroads: Domination, Crisis, Popular Movements, and Political Alternatives.  New York: Ocean Press.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Pan-American, Organization of American States, OAS

Haz clic aquí para modificar.

     George Snedeker has submitted the following message to the Progressive and Critical Sociologist Network with respect to the posts on Vietnam and comments submitted by members of the list.

     Georges raises a very important question:  Is there a point at which the sacrifices inherent in revolutionary change become too great?

     The people of Vietnam have paid a very high price to attain, in 1976, the sovereignty and unification of the country, which were violated by the French colonial process of 1859 to 1945, the Japanese occupation of 1940 to 1945, the French war of reconquest and neocolonial maneuvers from 1945 to 1954, and the US imperialist war and neocolonial strategies of 1954 to 1973.  Four million Vietnamese were killed during the stage of the US war.  I began my series of blog posts on Vietnam with a quotation from Fidel:  “No liberation movement, no people that has struggled for its independence, has had to carry out a struggle as long and heroic as the people of Vietnam.” 

     The national liberation movement in Vietnam is not a model for national liberation movements, because we expect and hope that no people will ever again have to pay so high a price to put into practice its right to be a sovereign and independent nation.  There is a sense, however, in which the Vietnamese national liberation revolution is a model, and this has to do with the question: How did they do it?  What enabled them to make such heroic sacrifices and to endure for so long in defense of the nation and the revolution?  I have implicitly argued in my various posts on Vietnam that this remarkable capacity of sacrifice and endurance was rooted in key factors that made the revolution advanced: the charismatic leadership of Ho Hi Minh, who provided a practical synthesis of the moral and intellectual traditions of Marxism-Leninism and Confucian nationalism, thus establishing an advanced understanding of objective conditions and possibilities.  Ho’s leadership enabled clear identification of the issues of national independence and distribution of land to peasants and made possible the formation of a committed vanguard with advanced understanding that was able to forge the united political and military action of the people.

       In previous posts, I have written on the Haitian Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Mexican Revolution, in addition to the posts since 4/24/2014 on the Vietnamese Revolution.  In future posts, I will treat other Third World revolutions, including those in Tanzania, Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.  I am endeavoring to show that Third World revolutions that have attained their goals have had charismatic leaders who forged a synthesis of an anti-colonial national liberation perspective and Marxism-Leninism (or some variant of it), and who formed a committed vanguard with advanced understanding, which identified key issues of importance to the people and which led the people in united political action.  (On the role of charismatic leaders in revolutionary processes, see the posts in the section on Charismatic Leaders).

      There is a price to be paid.  Revolutionary processes challenge the structures of the neocolonial world-system, and they therefore unavoidably stimulate reaction and counterrevolution.  And the reaction knows no civilized limits: it includes mass violence, torture, repression, and economic sanctions.  Often, people are reluctant to participate in unfolding revolutions, because they understand that sacrifices will be required, and they fear that, in the end, the revolutionary goals will not be attained.  Revolutionary leaders endeavor to persuade the people that the goals can be attained, if the people unite, and if the people are prepared to endure necessary sacrifices.

      Here in Cuba we know something about having to sacrifice for the revolution.  People still suffer emotional pain as a result of having lost family members or dear friends fifty years ago during the campaign of terroristic violence inflicted on the young Cuban Revolution.  But the level of violence suffered by the Cuban people has been small in comparison to Vietnam.  In Cuba, the sacrifices have been primarily in the realm of material hardships, caused by the fifty-year campaign of the United States and other global powers to economically, financially, and diplomatically isolate Cuba.  In spite of the blockade, as Cubans calls the “embargo,” Cuba has remarkable gains in education and health.  But having given priority to investment in human resources, there are limitations in material conditions.  Sometimes necessary items are hard to get, and in general, housing and transportation are inadequate; access to Internet is expensive and limited, and connections are slow.  Cubans for the most part endure these difficulties with dignity, and I have learned from them to do the same.  Few think that it has not been worth it.  To the contrary, most Cubans are proud of their nation’s important role as a model of true independence in a neocolonial world-system.

      Since it attained reunificaton in 1975, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has moved forward with its socialist project.  It made adjustments in its economic model in the 1980s, and in recent years, has attained high levels of growth.  It is developing cooperative relations with socialist and progressive governments that are seeking to develop an alternative more just and democratic world-system.  It continues to follow the road that fifty years ago provoked barbaric violence by the forces of reaction.  It may be a poor nation by some measures, but it is seeking to overcome its poverty through strategies and policies that it, as a sovereign nation, decides for itself.  It has paid a high price for its sovereignty, but it has attained it.

     Can sacrifice be too great, even when goals are attained?  My sense is that the response of the true revolutionary would be that no sacrifice in defense of the sovereignty and dignity of the nation is too great.  It perhaps is an extreme position, but it seems to me necessary, if a more just and democratic world is to be created.  For without such a conviction, we who struggle for a better world would be constantly thinking that perhaps we have paid enough, and it is time to give up; and the message to the reaction would be, if only it inflicts enough violence on us, it could get us to quit.  We must be fully committed to the principle that, no matter what price we have to pay, we will never surrender.  We must endure, until the reaction, beset by conflicts and problems provoked by its barbarity, recognizes that it must stop. 


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Vietnam

     Carrol Cox submitted the following comment with respect to the posts on Vietnam to the Progressive and Critical Sociologist Network list.

       The issue of a US proposal to use nuclear weapons to defend the French positions at Dien Bien Phu is discussed by Julio García Oliveras (2010:97-99), a Cuban intellectual who was chief of the Cuban military mission in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos from 1966 to 1969.  According to his account, when General Henry Eugene Navarre, supreme commander of French forces in Indochina, found that French troops were surrounded by the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam at Dien Bien Phu, he sent urgent and desperate requests to Washington for immediate military support.  During discussions of the request in the Eisenhower Administration, Admiral Arthur W. Radford, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, recommended the use of tactical nuclear weapons.  However, Radford withdrew the proposal as a result of strong objections by Army Chief of Staff General Matthew Ridgeway.  Radford, accordingly, proposed massive air attacks against Vietnamese positions around Dien Bien Phu.  Eisenhower accepted the proposal, but on the condition that it be a joint operation with European allies.  The British cabinet, however, rejected the US request to participate in a joint military action.  The British wanted to pursue a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Indochina through the Geneva Conference, discussions for which were in progress as Dien Bien Phu was under siege.  The United States thus rejected the French request for immediate intervention in Dien Bien Phu, which in any event would not have included nuclear weapons, according to García.  The French troops at Dien Bien Phu, numbering 16,000, surrendered to the Vietnamese forces, directed by General Vo Nguyen Giap. 

      The “Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam,” signed by France and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam at the Geneva Conference, divided Vietnam into two zones.  The “Final Declaration of the Conference of Geneva,” although it recognized the independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the North and the government of Bao Dia in the South, called for elections to be held in July 1956 that would reunify Vietnam, and it called upon both the northern and southern zones to cooperate in the implementation of the elections.  However, the Final Declaration was not signed by any of the participating nations, so it was not binding on any government.  All parties concurred that Ho Chi Minh would win overwhelmingly such elections.  From 1954 to 1959, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam repeatedly called for elections, in accordance with the Final Declaration.  But Ngo Dinh Diem, who had been named Prime Minister of South Vietnam by Bao Dai in 1954, refused to negotiate the implementation of elections.  Immediately after the conference, the United States announced that it would promote the development South Vietnam.  By the end of the year, US officials were declaring the Diem government to be the legitimate government of Vietnam.  In 1960, the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam was established, and the armed struggle was taken up as a strategy to reunify the nation, with support in the form of arms and training supplied by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the North (see “The Geneva Conference of 1954” 5/19/2014).  

     From 1945 to 1976, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam continually insisted on the independence and reunification of Vietnam.  Reunification was a historic goal of the Vietnamese nationalist movement, in response to the French colonial division of the nation into three regions.  The Democratic Republic of Vietnam persistently demonstrated willingness to negotiate with the various interested parties, and it was willing to move toward independence and unification gradually and peacefully.  But it considered the ultimate attainment of independence and unification as non-negotiable, and it was prepared to turn to armed struggle to attain these goals (see “French colonialism in Vietnam” 4/25/2014; “France seeks re-conquest of Vietnam” 5/15/2014; “The Geneva Conference of 1954” 5/19/2014; “The National Liberation Front (NLF)” 5/21/2014).


References

García Oliveras, Julio A. 2010.  Ho Chi Minh El Patriota: 60 años de lucha revolucionaria.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, Geneva Conference, tactical nuclear weapons

The following comments were submitted to the Progressive and Critical Sociologist Network list, in response to the blog posts on Vietnam.

     Yes, the United States was providing aid to the French in the early 1950s.   In 1949, the French established a government led by former emperor Bao Dai, intending it as an alternative to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, led by the Indochinese Communist Party and Ho Chi Minh, which had declared its independence from French colonial rule on September 2, 1945.  Both the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the puppet government of Bao Dai claimed to be the legitimate government of Vietnam, asserting jurisdiction over the territory that had been under the control of the empire of Vietnam prior to French colonialism.  The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was recognized by the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, and the socialist bloc nations of Eastern Europe, whereas the government of Bao Dai was recognized by France, the United States, and Great Britain.  In 1950, the United States began a program of military aid to the Boa Dai government, but it was channeled through the French.  Direct US aid to the Bao Dai government began in 1951, and it included military and civilian advisors.  By 1954, US aid to France covered 80% of the costs of the French War in Indochina. 

     This information is found in a book published in 2010 in Havana and written by Julio García Oliveras, the chief of the Cuban military mission in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos from 1966 to 1969 (García Oliveras, Julio A. 2010.  Ho Chi Minh El Patriota: 60 años de lucha revolucionaria.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales).

     Charles McKelvey