Posted October 23, 2017

     This is the first in a series of five posts on Donald Trump.  They reflect on two recent major addresses: Trump’s September 19 speech at the UN General Assembly, and his speech at the Heritage Foundation on October 17.

      Trump presents himself as an American patriot.  He calls upon the American people to treat the flag with reverence, honor the national anthem, and recite the pledge of allegiance.  He considers the Constitution of the United States to be the greatest political document in human history.  

     Moreover, he believes that all men and women should love their nation, regardless of what particular nation they belong.  “In remembering the great victory [the allied victory in World War II] that led to this body's founding [the United Nations], we must never forget that those heroes who fought against evil also fought for the nations that they loved.  Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain.”  He called upon the leaders of the world to be patriotic, for patriotism is the foundation for the construction of a peaceful, better world.

      Patriotism is not a sentiment with which the Left is entirely comfortable, in part because the Left has consciousness of the history of using patriotism to attain public support for imperialist wars.  However, Trump is right.  Patriotic sentiments are central to the construction of a better world.  We can clearly see this when we observe the Third World revolutions of national and social liberation, which were led by men and women who were patriotically defending their nations.  Great revolutionaries, like Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro, were great patriots (see “Patriotism” 1/28/2016)
  
     So all of us in the United States ought to be patriotic, and as Trump asserts, this requires knowledge of its history and heritage, and commitment to its values.  However, Trump misreads American history, albeit in a common form.  In celebrating the U.S. Constitution and its opening words, “We the people,” he ignores the fact the Constitution, while partially recognizing the rights of the people, included components that ensured elite control of the political process (see “The US popular movement of 1775-77” 11/1/13; “American counterrevolution, 1777-87” 11/4/13; “Balance of power” 11/5/13).

     It indeed is the case that the Constitution of the United States is one of the great documents of modern popular struggles for democracy.  Moreover, as the constitutional foundation of the U.S. legal system since 1787, it ought to be regarded as sacrosanct by the people of the United States.  Trump, however, has a fixed image of the Constitution, without appreciation of the fact that it is a living document, influencing and influenced by an evolving national political process.  The U.S. Constitution has evolved, first, through new interpretations of the judicial branch and new applications by the executive and legislative branches, made necessary by economic and social national and international development; and secondly, through amendments to the Constitution, which have been enacted as a result of the demands of popular movements, particularly in historic moments of popular revolution in the United States.  The first ten amendments to the Constitution, for example, were enacted as a concession to the inquietudes of the people, who were concerned that the new Constitution would concentrate power in the hands of the elite (see “American counterrevolution, 1777-87” 11/4/13).  Later, reflecting the influence of the abolitionist movement, three amendments in the period 1865 to 1870 protected the rights of persons of color.  The XIII amendment (1865) abolished slavery; the XIV amendment (1868) ensured that no persons could be denied life, liberty, or property without due process; and the XV amendment (1870) ensured that no person could be denied the right to vote on account of race or color.  In 1920, the XIX amendment prohibited the denial of the right to vote on account of sex.  During the renewed women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s, an equal rights amendment (ERA) for women was proposed, but its passage was blocked by the conservative counterrevolution of the 1980s.

       So let us American patriots understand the Constitution as a sacred yet living document, which is amended in times of challenge and change.  On the basis such an understanding, we can discern that the current historic moment calls for further amendments to the Constitution.  Four new amendments are necessary, and they should be proposed by the Left.  These four amendments would guarantee (1) gender equality; (2) the protection of the social and economic rights of all, including education, health, nutrition, and housing; (3) the protection of the environment; and (4) respect for the sovereignty of all nations in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.  Such proposals from the Left for constitutional amendments would imply a recognition of the sacred character of the Constitution, as Trump rightly insists, but with awareness that the Constitution is a living document.  With such proposals, Leftists would be presenting themselves as constitutionalists with respect for American heritage, but as dynamic constitutionalists who envision a constitutional process that responds to the challenges that humanity today confronts.

      In his address to the UN General Assembly, Trump proclaimed: “It is an eternal credit to the American character that even after we and our allies emerged victorious from the bloodiest war in history [World War II], we did not seek territorial expansion, or attempt to oppose and impose our way of life on others.  Instead, we helped build institutions such as this one [the United Nations] to defend the sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.”  This is a common interpretation in the political culture of the United States, but it ignores the characteristics of American imperial domination.  The territorial expansion of the United States ended at the end of the nineteenth century, and it was made possible the conquest of the indigenous nations and Mexico and by the acquisition of territory claimed by the French, Spanish and British colonial empires,.  With its extensive territory intact, the United States during the course of the twentieth century fueled its economic ascent through economic, commercial, and financial penetration, without placing the penetrated zones under formal political control as a part of U.S. territory.  Accordingly, the United States in the first half of the twentieth century was the originator of a new form of domination, which in the post-World War II era would replace the structures of the European colonial empires.  In this new form of neocolonial domination, the institutions developed under the U.S. tutelage (United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Organization of American States) were instruments.  In not seeing this, Trump is unwittingly asking the neocolonized peoples of the world to appreciate the new forms of domination, disguised by the apparent but not true sovereignty of their nations.

     With this myopic view, Trump is able to assert: “The United States of America has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.”  This notion is central to the American narrative, especially believed in the United States and, to some extent, in the entire world, when the USA was at the height of its power and glory.  However, it has limited political and cultural viability today, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the imposition of the neoliberal project, the economic decline of the United States, and aggressive wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.  With these developments, the interest of the United States in preserving its global hegemony has been revealed.

     Trump is right in calling the people to moral responsibility on the basis of appreciation of American heritage and the American Constitution.  The true patriots, however, are those that recognize America’s limitations, in order that they can be overcome.  The Left has the duty to formulate an alternative narrative that, while recognizing American contributions to modern democracy, also educates the people concerning the limitations of the American theory and practice of democracy, calling the people to a responsible road in this historic moment of global crisis, on the foundation of an integrated philosophical-historical-social science (see “Universal philosophical historical social science” 4/2/2014).

Posted October 24, 2017
​
​     Donald Trump believes in a strong military.  His administration recently attained passage of historic increases in defense spending, which, he maintains, will bring the annual budget for military and defense spending to $700 billion.  And he suggests that the military chiefs will have greater autonomy:  “From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operations, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians.” 

      In spite of the greater government spending involved in the military budget increase, Trump announced a massive tax cut at his Heritage Foundation speech on October 17.  Maintaining that the tax cuts of the Reagan administration unleashed the “economic miracle” of the 1980s, he argues that tax cuts result in higher salaries, more employment, and greater economic growth.  He proposes that the first $12,000 earned by a single individual, $24,000 for a married couple, be tax-free.  He proposes a reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to no more than 20%, maintaining that U.S. corporate taxes are 60% higher than major U.S. competitors, placing U.S. corporations at a disadvantage.  He also proposes a cap on the tax for small businesses at twenty-five percent, which he maintains represents the biggest tax reduction for small business in the history of the nation.  In addition, by proposing a low one-time tax on profits deposited in offshore accounts, his tax plan will bring back to the country more than 2.5 trillion dollars that are parked oversees, making it more feasible for American companies to stay and hire in America.  Moreover, he proposes an elimination of the estate tax and an increase in child tax credit for working families.  He maintains that the tax proposals will renew industry and unleash a new middle class America, and they will increase the annual income of American families by four thousand dollars.

     Although Trump has fond memories of the Reagan years, when the Reagan administration slashed taxes while increasing military expenditures, U.S. corporations did not become more competitive, and the government deficit grew significantly.  By 1988, the USA became the world’s most indebted country (LaFeber, 1994, 645, 711-12).  Faustino Cobarrubia, of the Center for the Study of the World Economy in Cuba, observes: 

And as LaFeber writes, “The world’s great moneybags between 1914 and 1970, the United States, after 1971, lost much of its ability to compete in the world marketplace and then, between 1981 and 1987, shockingly turned into the world’s greatest debtor” (1994, 737).  Similarly, as expressed by Paul Kennedy in his study of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:

      In addition, the Reagan administration launched the era of neoliberal policies, which facilitated the free flow of capital into and out of countries, thus making possible enormous profits through financial speculation.  Investments in productive and commercial enterprises in recent decades have been lower than what they previously had been, and they have been lower than investments in financial speculation.  In search of profits, capital has moved to financial speculation, further eroding production and commerce.  This has given rise to a continuous expansion in financial speculation, which has resulted in the transformation of historic high-low cycles of financial speculation into an ongoing trend of increasing financial speculation.  Neoliberal deregulation of financial transactions was in the interests of the corporations, banks, and finance agencies, because it facilitated the fast and easy money that comes from financial speculation.  However, elevated levels of financial speculation direct capital away from investment in the real economy, which creates the goods and services that satisfy human need and stimulate real economic growth (Martínez 1999, 2010).

      Given the trend in recent decades toward financial speculation, what assurance is there that additional capital in the hands of U.S. corporations would be directed to invention in the production of goods and services?  A tax cut per se does not ensure investment in national production; a reform of the tax code must include incentives and regulations that are designed to stimulate investment in the nation and in sustainable forms of production.

      At the same time, the Trump administration is eliminating what it proclaims to be unnecessary environmental regulations that restrict the growth of the economy.  It is true that ecologists sometimes display an unconcern for the economy, and Trump exploits this for political purposes.  But the steps that Trump is taking in weakening the Environmental Protection Agency implies destroying necessary mechanisms for environmental protection, in defense of corporate interests.  The corporations, however, have demonstrated in recent decades an orientation to short-term profits and an unconcern for protecting the environment.

     The reduction in environmental regulations, combined with tax cuts without regulation, imply a program that responds to corporate interests, notwithstanding Trump’s rhetoric that, with his election, the people now rule.  In spite of these contradictions, however, Trump has an effective populist discourse, which we will explore in the next post.

​

​References
 
Cobarrubia, Gómez, Faustino.  2006. “Economía de los Estados Unidos: Una retrospectiva de las últimas cuatro décadas” in Libre Comercio y subdesarrollo.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.
 
Kennedy, Paul.  1989.  The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000.  New York: Vintage Books
 
LaFeber, Walter.  1994.  The American Age: USA Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad, 1750 to the present, Second Edition.  New York: W. W. Norton.
 
Martínez Martínez, Osvaldo.  1999.  Neoliberalismo en Crisis.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.
 
__________.  2010. “La larga marcha de la crisis económica capitalista.”  Unpublished paper.
 

Posted October 25, 2017

     In his September 19 address to the UN General Assembly, Donald Trump proclaimed, “In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign.  I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people, where it belongs.”

     We have seen that the Trump project places the interests of U.S. corporations above the interests of the people, in that Trump proposes significant reductions in corporate taxes, without conditioning the cuts on investment in national production; and inasmuch as his administration takes the side of the corporations in their battle with ecologists and environmental regulation (see “Military strength and tax relief: Trump and Reagan” 10/24/2017). 

       Nevertheless, the rhetoric of Trump has considerable popular appeal.  His call to patriotism, his affirmation of American heritage and values, his belief in the historic “greatness” of America, his belief that a strong nation needs a strong military, his proposal for massive tax cuts, and his efforts to reduce government regulation have resonance among a significant sector of the people (see “America as seen by Donald Trump” 10/23/2017; “Military strength and tax relief: Trump and Reagan” 10/24/2017).  These are divisive issues, in that there is a liberal constituency that stands resolutely against the proposals, particularly in the form that the issues are framed.  There is nonetheless a sizable sector of the people, perhaps approximately one-third, that are strongly in Trump’s corner with respect to these issues, constituting an important political force.

     In addition, Trump connects to a sector of the people with respect to other issues.  He maintains, for example, that laws are the foundation of the nation, and he calls on the people to support men and women in law enforcement.  In taking a “pro-police” position, he clearly is siding with those who believe that law enforcement officials are constrained by rules that restrict them in the performance of their duties; and he is siding with those who believe that liberals are overly critical of the conduct of police.  This “law and order” platform has a degree of popular appeal in the United States.

      Another issue in which Trump’s rhetoric has resonance among a sector of the people is that of uncontrolled international migration.  In his October 17 Heritage Foundation speech, he reiterates his call for strong borders and a crackdown on sanctuary cities.  In his discussion of this theme during the electoral campaign and his presidency, Trump displays no understanding of the sources of uncontrolled international migration, and he does not have sensible proposal.  However, he effectively has exploited the issue politically, albeit in a form that has been conflictive and divisive, provoking liberal opposition.

    Rather than taking the liberal side in the political and cultural division of the nation, the Left should seek to reframe the issues in a form that has more resonance with the sector to which Trump appeals.  The Left should formulate an alternative narrative: that calls for true American patriots to develop a thorough knowledge of American history, including consciousness of the limitations of American democracy in theory and practice, and including appreciation of the historic struggles of popular movements to overcome these limitations; that demonstrates a solid understanding of the factors that explain the spectacular economic ascent of the United States and its recent relative productive and commercial decline, debunking “American exceptionalism” and making evident the preparedness of the Left to lead the nation in the present context of sustained global crisis; that includes comprehensive law enforcement proposals based on analysis of the causes of the militarization of policing, connecting law enforcement issues to the social and economic development of local communities; and that affirms the rights of immigrants in the context of an analysis of the causes of uncontrolled international migration, proposing comprehensive solutions (see “A Left narrative on immigration” 3/9/2017 in the category Trump).

     Spiro Agnew, the polemical vice-president of Richard Nixon, once referred to “radical liberals” as “effete snobs.”  We should show that we are not, by demonstrating our commitment to the nation and its people, through the formulation of an alternative narrative that could only be created through hard work and self-sacrifice.

Posted October 26, 2017

     In his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 17, Donald Trump declared, “As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first.  All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.”  He proclaimed that the success of the United Nations “depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security, prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.”  

     However, the independence of nations that Trump affirms is not true sovereignty.  Like numerous predecessors in the high office that he holds, Trump expects a form of international peace that is subordinate to the interests of the United States and its transnational corporations, as can be seen in the following proclamation: “We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government.  But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties:  to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.”  In his view, respecting the interests of the people requires that nations adopt representative democracy, as against popular democracy; and it requires that nations place few restrictions on free trade, that is, on the access of transnational corporations to their natural resources, labor, and markets.  Socialism, accordingly, is unacceptable.  “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.  From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.  Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems.”

    In Trump’s view, the nations that ignore the rules of an international Pax Americana are evil, and the Unites States has a duty to confront them.  “If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.  When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.”  In accordance with this conception of American confrontation of evil, Trump identifies several “rogue regimes”: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela.

     In light of the large increase in the military budget and the threats against North Korea, Trump appears to be inclined to use military force to implement the American vision.  When the United States was at the height of its power, it balanced military action and military presence with economic penetration, financial control, American prestige, and cooperation from national elites of the countries of the world.  However, in recent decades, the relative economic decline and the waning of U.S. prestige has made necessary an increasing reliance on military action in the U.S. conduct of its foreign policy.  This dynamic has been expressing itself since the 1960s: the Vietnam War, the increased military expenditures and the brief wars of the Reagan administration, the Iraq War of the Bush I administration, the “humanitarian interventions” of the Clinton administration, and the wars of aggression in the Middle East by the Bush II and Obama administrations.  Trump represents the culmination of this turn to military action, which may appear to be a sign of strength, but in reality is an indication of economic decline.

   In response to Trump, the Left should creatively formulate a politically intelligent alternative narrative that calls the people to the taking of power, so that United States can conduct its foreign policy on the basis of solidarity with the peoples of the world and respect for the true sovereignty of all nations.  This is the only foundation for a just and sustainable world-system.

      For an indication of a possible alternative narrative based on the taking of power by the people in Cuba, placing the Cuban Revolution in global historical context, see my book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The light in the darkness.

Posted October 30, 2017

     In his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations of September 19, 2017, Donald Trump declared, “In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution's noble aims have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them.  For example, it is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council.”

      The dominant ideology in U.S. political culture assumes that the United States has an advanced theory and practice of democracy.  However, if we compare and contrast the evolution of the idea of democracy in various nations and regions of the world during the last two centuries, we see that the USA has a limited understanding of democracy.  In the United States, human rights are understood as pertaining to political and civil rights, such as the rights to vote, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, due process of law, and freedom of religion.  Education, medical care, housing, and nutrition are not conceived as rights, neither in the Constitution, nor in law, nor in the political culture.  In contrast, the UN 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms social and economic rights as the inalienable rights of all persons of all nations.  Said Declaration reflects the influence of the socialist governments of Eastern Europe of the time, the emerging Third World movements and independent states, and the working class movements of the representative democracies of the West.  Accordingly, the U.S. conception of human rights is more narrow that that of the majority of movements and nations of the world, such that the belief that the United States is the model for democratic theory and practice is a myopic view (“Social and economic rights” 11/7/13 in the category American Revolution).

      Similarly, the U.S. concept of human rights does not affirm the right of nations to sovereignty and to control of their natural resources, nor does it include the concept of the right of all peoples to sustainable economic development.  The United Nations, however, has affirmed these rights in various documents, as a result of the persistent demand and proclamation of the nations of the Third World.  One such document is the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which proclaimed:  “All peoples have the right of self-determination.  By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation” (see “Right of nations to self-determination” 11/8/13 in the category American Revolution).

       Although scarcely known in the United States, Cuba, in contrast, has developed an advanced theory and practice of democracy.  It has made significant investments to ensure that all of its citizens have free access to education and health care, and that their minimum housing and nutritional needs are met.  In the conduct of its foreign policy, Cuba seeks cooperation with other nations, on the basis of mutual respect in the development of economic, cultural, and diplomatic relations.  It regularly proclaims in various international fora, in a dignified and informed manner, the need for an international norm of cooperation and respect for sovereignty.  In addition, Cuba has developed a system of popular democracy, an alternative to representative democracy, in which delegates of the people are nominated and elected by the people at the local level, without the participation of political parties and without the need for electoral campaigns and campaign financing.  This alternative process of popular democracy ensures that the elected delegates of the people are not compelled to respond to the interests of their largest campaign contributors (see “Cuba, United States, and human rights” 4/9/2015 in the category Cuba Today).

      U.S. foreign policy is imperialist, that is, it seeks economic and financial penetration of the economies of the nations of the world, so that it will have access to their natural resources, labor, and markets (see the category US Imperialism).  In the pursuit of its imperialist objectives, the United States uses the strategy of political manipulation of the issue of human rights.  The strategy involves selectively distorting the political reality in particular nations, presenting a false image of human rights violations, in order to justify sanctioning nations that refuse to submit to U.S. imperialist objectives.  In the case of Cuba, the manipulation involves repeating the fact that there are not multi-party elections in Cuba, without noting that political parties do not participate in the elections of delegates, and ignoring the fact that multi-candidate elections are held every two and one-half years, with a voter participation rate in excess of 90%.  On the basis of decades of distortions of the Cuban political process, Trump refers to “the corrupt and destabilizing regime in Cuba” that suppresses the freedom of the people.  Armed with similar distortions, Trump mentions a “false guise of democracy” in Iran and an authoritarian regime being imposed in Venezuela.  Such charges cannot be supported on the basis of observation of the actual political processes in these nations.  They are ideological manipulations, constructed in order to justify policies that seek imperialist objectives.

      During the period 1990 to 2007, the UN Commission on Human Rights stigmatized and castigated countries on the basis of false U.S. ideological manipulations.  However, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, the revolutionary project of Third World national and social liberation began to experience renewal (see the category Third World).  As a result, Third World governments insisted on a Commission that would not function to serve the political and economic interests of a superpower, but would be a true international forum for the analysis and recommendation of policies with respect to human rights in the world.  Accordingly, in 2006, the United Nations abolished the Commission on Human Rights and established the Council on Human Rights.  The UN General Assembly elected Cuba to the Council, in spite of opposition from the United States.  The USA, with its international prestige at its lowest point since the founding of the United Nations, was not a candidate to serve on the Council. 

     Trump’s protest of the makeup of the UN Council on Human Rights does not refer to the claim of Third World governments that the United States ideologically manipulates the issue of human rights in pursuit of its imperialist interests.  Nor did his commentary refer to the successful effort of Third World governments to establish a new Council on Human Rights, with a different mission and membership.  As a whole, his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations demonstrated no awareness that, from the vantage point of the Third World and the socialist and progressive movements and governments of the world, the United States has a limited theory and practice of democracy.

     The Left has the duty to formulate an alternative narrative that places the interpretation of the American nation on a scientific foundation.  Such a formulation should include explanation of the differing understandings of democracy that have emerged in the world, with each understanding emerging from a determined social base of particular classes and nations.  Perhaps many of the people of the United States, upon knowing the various conceptions of democracy, would insist on restricting the scope of human rights to political and civil issues.  Some perhaps would feel that the government of the United States does not have a duty to protect the social and economic rights of the people, believing it an individual responsibility to secure them.  Perhaps some would feel that each nation should protect its sovereignty with its own military and economic power, and that no government has a moral obligation to respect the sovereignty of other nations.  Perhaps some would feel that a more limited concept of democracy is a fundamental American value.  

     Nevertheless, the Left should put these issues before the people for debate, giving its reasons for believing that the government of the United States should protect the social and economic rights of the people and the sovereignty of all nations, maintaining that a more comprehensive understanding of democracy is necessary for the good of the nation and for humanity.  Moreover, the Left should explain that the deeper and expanded understanding of democracy has been an aspiration of many of the people of the United States since the birth of the nation, as can be demonstrated through study of the various social movements that the people have formed.  Certainly, many of the people of the United States would support a proposal for a national project based on a deeper meaning of democracy, if it were to be presented to them in a clear and politically intelligent form.

      If the Left could present a scientifically and historically informed narrative of the nation to the people, it would establish the possibility of reasoned discussion over the meaning of democracy, moving the nation beyond the present political scenario, in which the people are divided into two hostile camps that shout at each other, both armed with superficial arguments. 
​

     Major media outlets in the North have published articles concerning the U.S. claim of attacks against U.S. diplomatic personnel in Havana (see “Cuba denies acoustic attacks” 10/12/2017).  In an article published on October 5 in The New York Times, Carl Zimmer writes that “scientists doubt a hidden ultrasound weapon can explain what happened in Cuba.”  Similarly, in an October 12 article in The Guardian, Julian Borger and Philip Jaekl assert that “many acoustics experts have said that it is highly unlikely that the range of symptoms reported could have been caused by any kind of sonic weapon.”

     Zimmer maintains that the U.S. military has investigated the possibility of using sound as a non-lethal weapon, and such weapons have been used by the Navy to ward off pirates and by police for crowd control.  “But these weapons work because they are insufferably loud, and if one were used against diplomats in Cuba, there would be no mystery about it.”

      Therefore, speculation has turned to the use of a device that produces ultrasound, which is sound outside the range of human hearing, because its frequencies are too high.  But there are various difficulties with an ultrasound device explanation of the events at the U.S. embassy in Cuba.  Ultrasound cannot travel long distances, and it would not be able to penetrate the walls at the U.S. embassy.  These difficulties could be overcome by using a big weapon, “a massive vehicle topped with a giant sound cannon,” but this would be easy to detect.  If a smaller devise were placed inside the building, the interior walls would block the waves.  Moreover, ultrasound would not produce the mild brain injury that is among the various reported symptoms.  The ultrasound devise explanation does not make sense, given the facts that have been presented.

      As a result of the lack of plausibility of an ultrasound device, Borger and Jaekl suggest the possibility of a psychogenic explanation, also known as mass hysteria.  They quote Robert Bartholomew, author of books on mass hysteria: “None of this makes sense until you consider the psychogenic explanation.”  And they cite Mark Hallett, the head of the human motor control section of the U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and president of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology:  “From an objective point of view, it’s more like mass hysteria than anything else. . . .   There are a very large number of individuals that have relatively vague complaints. . . .  If it is mass hysteria, that would clarify all the mystery. . . .  These people are all clustered together in a somewhat anxious environment, and that is exactly the situation that precipitates something like this. Anxiety may be one of the critical factors.”  They also cite Jon Stone, a neurologist at the University of Edinburgh, who observed that the outbreak may have started with one or two people with headaches or hearing problems, and it spread to others in a high-stress atmosphere.

     No one should think that Cuba is a hostile environment for U.S. diplomats in Cuba.  Neither the Cuban leadership nor the Cuban people is hostile to people from other countries, including diplomats from the United States.  To be sure, there is tension, as a result of the fact that some members of the U.S. diplomatic staff have been directly involved in supporting “dissidents” in Cuba, in violation of Cuban laws.  But even with respect to this situation, Cuba protests such interference in Cuban affairs and calls for respect of international diplomatic norms, but it has not taken action against those engaged in such activities, even though Cuban intelligence services know which diplomats are involved.  

     However, inasmuch as Cuba is a focal point of confrontation between savage neoliberal capitalism and the Third World project of national and socialist liberation, and given that the U.S. blockade of Cuba has been condemned by the world, a post in Cuba is possibly one of the more stressful assignments for U.S. diplomatic personnel.  And the election of Trump may have created a more stressful situation.  For U.S. diplomats in Cuba, there emerged with Trump’s election a number of questions, for which there was no immediate answer.  What would the policy of the new president be with respect to Cuba?  What posture should a staff member adopt with respect to Cuba before representatives of the new administration?  What does the election of Trump mean for one’s diplomatic career?  There are reasons for thinking that the U.S. embassy in Havana has been a stressful environment since November 2016, which is when the State Department first heard of the “attacks.”
       
     The positing in The Guardian article of a psychogenic explanation emerges from the fact the sonic weapon claim is viewed as nonsensical.  But rather than a psychogenic phenomenon, there is the possibility that the entire affair is a politically-motivated construction.  Inasmuch as disinformation campaigns generally include truth in some details, we would suspect that the story was not constructed out of nothing.  Perhaps there were a few cases of a mysterious illness, and the construction of the sonic attack story was convenient politically.  As Cubans would say, they made a storm out of a glass of water.

     Perhaps we will learn more about this strange affair in the future; perhaps not.  But we can be sure that there is no reason to doubt Cuban insistence that it has no responsibility in the affair.

     The Chavist Revolution in Venezuela attained a resounding victory in the regional elections of October 15 (see “Victory for Chavistas in Venezuela” 10/17/2017).  Given serious economic difficulties and a problem of government corruption, why did 54% of Venezuelan voters support Chavist candidates?

      There are two reasons.  First, the revolution led by Hugo Chávez from the period 1994 until his death in 2013 and led today by Nicolás Maduro has established the sovereignty of the nation.  Prior to Chávez, natural resources were used to promote the economic development the United States and other developed nations of the North; and beginning in the 1980s, such superexploitation was deepened through imposition of the neoliberal project.  These dynamics were possible through the cooperation of the Venezuelan elite with transnational corporations, responding to their particular interests rather than the wellbeing of the nation.  Chávez had the capacity to explain to the people the dysfunctionality of the system for Venezuela, and to denounce the elite as traitors to the nation.  When the Chavist Revolution took power in 1998, it took steps to attain control of the production and sale of oil, integrating them into a national project that developed social missions in response to the needs of the people.  As a result, today 72% of the state budget is dedicated to the social sector, including education, housing, and health.  Thus the Chávist Revolution has been a force in defense of the nation and the people.  Why wouldn’t the people support it?

     Secondly, current economic difficulties, political divisions, and violence are a consequence of the behavior of the opposition, which seeks a return to neoliberal policies and subordination to U.S. interests.  Using its ownership of trading enterprises, the opposition has blocked the importation of necessary goods to the people.  And it has organized violent gangs to attack citizens and government buildings.  Moreover, it has used its control of the parliament since December 2014, not to propose an alternative national project, but to sow division.  The behavior of the opposition has been unpatriotic, standing in opposition to the good of the nation and the needs of the people.  Why wouldn’t the people reject the opposition?  In fact, if it were not for the capacity of the elite to confuse some of the people through its control of the private mass media in Venezuela, the Chavist Revolution would be able to attain a higher level of electoral support, standing as it does in defense of the interests of the majority.

      The international news media has portrayed the Venezuelan situation so negatively that those believing these distortions find it impossible to believe that the Chavistas won the elections of October 15.  Accordingly, seeking to maintain their credibility, the media refuse to accept the results.  The New York Times, for example, cites supposedly informed persons who claim that the elections were fraudulent.  These claims, however, offer no specific explanation with respect to the possible means of fraud in an electoral system with automated voting machines and international observers.  They are merely general claims, whose credibility is ensured by previous distortions of Venezuelan reality.

     On October 17, Nicolás Maduro held an International Press Conference, explaining the openness and security of the electoral process; and proclaiming that Venezuela is a free and democratic country and that the Chavist Revolution is peaceful, electoral, democratic and constitutional.  It lasted for more than three hours, and it included video connections to the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Spain, and Trinidad, from which questions were submitted.  It was broadcast live on Venezuela’s public television channel, Telesur, which is regularly transmitted on one of Cuba’s educational channels.  However, the English-speaking peoples of the North for the most part did not see it, for Telesur is not among the numerous channels that are offered in cable packages of the North.  The peoples of the North are being exposed to a rehashing by “experts” of the claims of the U.S. allies and lackeys in Venezuela, but they do not hear the political leaders who speak for the majority.  

      All of this distortion, deceit and denial from the North has its logic.  The United States cannot accept a sovereign nation in Latin America, for national sovereignty contradicts the structures of the neocolonial world-system.  As a neocolonial power, the USA depends on political-economic structures that ensure access to natural resources, cheap sources of labor, and markets for surplus goods; its foreign policy thus cannot tolerate any nation than seeks to sovereignly make decisions with respect to its natural resources, human labor, and foreign commerce.  If the United States wants to preserve its position of power in the neocolonial world-system, it must pursue a policy of regime change with respect to governments that seek sovereignty, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador.  The economic and ideological campaign against Venezuela, waged by the United States and the global powers in cooperation with the Venezuelan elite, reflects this neocolonial situation.  Accordingly, the United States is compelled to continue its efforts to undermine the Chavist revolution as a threat to its interests; it cannot accept the results of the October 15 elections, regardless of what the facts actually are.

      Although consistent with short-term interests of the global elite, the policy of regime change is not intelligent in the long run.  The neocolonial world-system is not sustainable.  Constructed on a foundation of conquest and colonial domination of the nations, kingdoms, and empires of the world from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries, the European-centered world-system has run out of lands and peoples to conquer.  Moreover, during the course of the last two centuries, the colonized peoples have rejected the basic structures of the world-system imposed on them, and they have arrived to demand a new international economic order and a more just, democratic, and sustainable world.  Meanwhile, as the world-system has reached the ecological limits of the earth, the use of vital natural resources has become overextended.  Common human problems have emerged, such as climate change, uncontrolled international migration, terrorism in a new form, organized crime networks, systemic poverty, and the militarization of the foreign policies of key nations.  In this scenario of collective self-destruction, the global powers have a long-range interest in a change in direction, moving to cooperation with other nations in pursuit of a sustainable world-system.  

       Venezuela is a key player in an unfolding world-historical drama that is a confrontation between two forces.  On the one side, there are the transnational corporations and their political representatives in core states, who seek to maintain the structures of the neocolonial world-system.  On the other side stand the socialist and progressive states and popular social movements that seek to construct a more just and sustainable world-system.  In addition to Venezuela, other key states in the current movement for an alternative world include Cuba, China, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iran, Brazil, and Argentina.  Brazil, Argentina, and possibly Ecuador are experiencing contradictions at present, but unfolding dynamics favor that these nations will retake the alternative road.  In given historical moments during the course of the twentieth century, other nations participated in the alternative project for a time: Russia, Egypt, Indonesia, Ghana, Tanzania, Chile, and Libya.  

     Among the people of the United States and the other peoples of the North, there is a general lack of awareness of the significance of the alternative world movement, based primarily in the Third World, for the future of humanity.  This is a consequence of the ideological distortions generated by the global powers through their control of the media of communication and institutions of higher education.  And it is a consequence of the failure of the Left in the North to encounter the Third World movements, to arrive to see the unfolding world historical drama, and to call upon their peoples to take power from the corporate class and the politicians who function de facto as their representatives, in order that the states in the North can cooperate with the neocolonized peoples of the world in the construction of a more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system.

      All of this is understood by the Chavistas in Venezuela.  In fact, I learned by listening to them and their like-minded compañeros in other lands, based on the premise that they have something important to say.  Such encounter with the movements of the Third World is the key for the Left in the North.  Encounter with the global popular movements formed from below would empower the Left in the North by enabling the discovery and proclamation of the necessary road. 

      The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela won a resounding victory in the regional elections of October 15.  The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV for its initials in Spanish) won 17 state governorships; two opposition parties, Democratic Action and Justice First, won five; and one contest is undecided.  PSUV candidates received 54% of the total votes cast.  Voter participation was 61%, the highest in the nation’s history for regional elections, and significantly higher than the 54% attained in the regional elections of 2012.

      Since the 1999 Constitution established the Fifth Republic, Venezuela, reacting to the previous system of fraudulent elections, has developed transparent and fair elections.  Indeed, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has called them the best in the world.  The elections are managed by the Electoral National Council, an entity that is separate and autonomous from the other governmental branches.  The more than thirteen thousand electoral centers in the country are equipped with advanced technology, making possible a system of automated voting.  In the October 15 regional elections, 18,099,391 citizens voted in 13,559 electoral centers, equipped with 30,274 voting machines.  More than 1500 experts observed the process; international observers, including the Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America (Ceela for its initials in Spanish), certified the elections as fair and legitimate.  

     Since the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998, twenty-two elections and referenda have been held, and the Chavistas have won all but two of them.  That the governing Chavistas accepted the two losses (the 2007 referendum on proposed constitutional amendments and the 2015 parliamentary elections) is itself a confirmation of the democratic character of the Venezuelan electoral process since 1999; as is known, dictators do not lose elections.

      The results of the October 15 regional elections indicate a revitalization of the Bolivarian revolutionary process.  Taking advantage of the death of Hugo Chávez in 2013 and a dramatic fall of Venezuelan oil revenue as a result of the decline of oil prices in 2014, the Venezuelan opposition escalated its efforts to destabilize the country, intending to provoke a U.S. intervention that would be favorable to its particular interests.  The opposition launched an economic war, using its control of commerce to reduce the supply of necessary goods, thus generating shortages and rampant inflation.  And it launched a media campaign against the government, using its ownership of the media of communication, blaming the government for the economic difficulties, accusing the government of corruption, and presenting a false international image of the government as repressive.  Some sectors of the opposition also have established and supported violent gangs, which have attacked government centers and supporters of the Chavist revolution.  These strategies were successful in generating confusion among the people, and they enabled opposition candidates to attain a majority in the parliamentary elections of December 2015.  However, the opposition arrived to a parliamentary majority without a politically viable platform.  It seeks to restore neoliberal policies and to reestablish an economy that is subordinate to the interests of the United States and transnational capital.  Such a platform cannot be presented to the people, inasmuch as a majority has rejected such an approach since the 1990s, having experienced its negative consequences.  As a result, rather that presenting an alternative political project through its parliamentary majority, the opposition has escalated its destabilization tactics, and it has sought the removal from office of constitutionally elected President Nicolás Maduro.

      Maduro was handpicked by Chávez to be his successor, and he was elected to the presidency in 2013 as the first worker president in Venezuelan history and the first “Chavist” president.  He has responded to the opposition efforts at destabilization by constantly exhorting the people to support and defend the Chavist revolution and by persistently maintaining that all political disagreements should be resolved through peaceful means and without foreign interference.  Earlier this year, Maduro convoked a new Constitutional Assembly.  This appears to have been a successful tactic, as the Chavistas were able to enlist significantly more votes for the election of delegates to the assembly than was the opposition for support of an informal referendum against a constitutional assembly.  In addition, decrees issued by the Constitutional Assembly appear to be a stabilizing factor.  The Chavist victory in the October 16 regional elections may be a further indication of a retaking of momentum by the Chavist revolution, containing the post-2013 counterattack of the Right.

     Unable to accept defeat, the opposition is claiming electoral fraud.  The international news media (owned by transnational corporations, principally based in the United States) are active participants in the destabilizing campaign against the government of Venezuela, in violation of the principle of non-interference in the affairs of nations.  Given the distorted image of Venezuela that they seek to present, their reporting on the regional elections has focused on the claims of election fraud by the opposition.  They ignore fundamental facts with respect to the Venezuelan electoral process since 1999, preying upon the state of ignorance among the English-speaking peoples of the North with respect to Venezuela and Latin America.

      Since the attainment of a parliamentary majority by the opposition in December 2015, I have believed that ultimately the people would reject the opposition, because as a parliamentary majority, its incapacity to formulate an alternative national project, and its disregard for the needs of the people and the good of the nation, would stand exposed for all to see.  Perhaps this view is confirmed by the results of the regional elections of October 15, 2017.  

     I have a similar view with respect to current dynamics in Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador.  Electoral games and ideological distortions, if cleverly done, can confuse some of the people for a time.  But if the people are presented by a viable national project that seeks social justice, national sovereignty, and a sustainable world-system, a majority will reject the betrayal of the people and the nation in pursuit of particular interests.

      For further information on the Chavist revolution in Venezuela, see Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.  For more posts on Venezuela, in the category Venezuela, scroll down.

P.S.  On October 18, the Electoral National Council confirmed the Chavist candidate as winner in the elections in the state of Bolívar, bringing to eighteen the number of Chavist governors in the twenty-three states of Venezuela (October 20, 2017).

      On September 29, the U.S. Department of State reduced its diplomatic presence at its Embassy in Havana, ordering the departure of non-emergency U.S. staff; and it warned U.S. citizens that they should not travel to Cuba.  The stated reason for these measures is a pattern of acoustic attacks directed against U.S. Embassy employees in Havana, which allegedly began in November 2016.  The U.S. claims that that those affected “have exhibited a range of physical symptoms including ear complaints and hearing loss, dizziness, headache, fatigue, cognitive issues, and difficulty sleeping.”

       The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations maintains that Cuba fully complies with international norms concerning the physical safety of foreign diplomatic staff in its territory categorically; it denies any responsibility in the affair, and it rejects the U.S. decisions as not founded on evidence. It further maintains that the U.S. Embassy has not provided sufficient details concerning the alleged incidents, in spite of repeated Cuban requests for more information; that the Cuban committee formed to investigate the affair has been denied access to the alleged victims and the doctors who examined them; that the U.S. Embassy in many cases delayed for months the reporting of the incidents, thus undermining the possibility of a serious investigation; and that the Cuban committee has been denied the possibility for interchange with specialists in this type of attack, concerning which Cuba possesses little knowledge.  The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations insists that it has not been provided a shred of evidence that the acoustic attacks have occurred, nor have been identified possible perpetrators with motives or means for such attacks.  Moreover, the Cuban journalist Sergio Alejandro Gómez cites international specialists who assert that a sophisticated “sonic weapon” would not produce the symptoms described; nor could it select some victims in a room, sparing others, as is alleged.  

     On October 3, the U.S. Department of State also ordered the departure from the United States of fifteen members of the Cuban embassy in Washington.  Bruno Rodriquez, Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations, asserts that the expulsion of Cuban diplomats from Washington has nothing to do with the supposed concern of the U.S. government for its diplomatic staff in Cuba.  He maintains that the October 3 decision shows the U.S. political motivation behind the entire affair.

       There can be no reasonable doubt that Cuba has no interest in attacking the U.S. diplomatic staff, or in tolerating such attacks by third parties.  Cuba desires the normalization of relations between the two countries, and any such attacks, if exposed, would seriously undermine this goal.  Moreover, the exposure of any attacks against foreign diplomats in Cuba would place Cuban diplomatic staff in other countries at risk.  Cuba insists on respect for the 1961 Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in part, because revolutionary Cuba for many years has been victimized by assassinations, kidnappings, and attacks against its diplomatic staff.  

       The interest of the Cuban government in respect for international laws and rules can be understood in a more general form.  Cuban foreign policy since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution has been based on full respect for international norms and laws, including such principles as the equality and sovereignty of all nations, the non-interference in the affairs of nations, and the right of all nations and peoples to development and to self-determination.  Such a policy is fully consistent with the revolutionary goals of the Cuban government, inasmuch as it is has been the neocolonial global powers that consistently have interfered in the affairs of other nations, in violation of their sovereignty, in pursuit of particular economic and political interests.  If fundamental international principles were to guide the world-system, popular revolutionary governments would be able to protect their natural and human resources and the sovereignty of their nations, without being subjected to economic sanctions, political interference, military interventions, and ideological attacks.  In such a world, popular revolutions have political space. 

     Driven by its revolutionary goal of contributing to the creation of a world-system guided by norms and values that have been proclaimed formally, but not respected in practice, Cuba has a long history of full respect for international norms.  On the other hand, the United States has a long history of distorting facts in order to attain political and economic goals.  This hypocritical disrespect for proclaimed values has defined U.S. foreign policy since the end of the nineteenth century, when it entered the stage of imperialism; and it has been more blatant since the 1980s, as the world-system entered sustained structural crisis and the United States began a commercial and economic decline.  For anyone with historical consciousness of this U.S. legacy of deceit, it is difficult to believe the U.S. allegations against Cuba, when it provides no evidence.

       The U.S. allegations are dismissed completely and universally in Cuba, not only by the government but also among the people, among whom there is consciousness of revolutionary Cuba’s dignified and exemplary behavior with respect to international norms as well as awareness of the U.S. history of deceit and distortion in order to defend economic and political interests.  But in the United States, where there is less historical and political consciousness, the allegations of the U.S. government may have some ideological weight.  The allegations may have credibility, as a result of misconceptions of Cuba as undemocratic and controlled from above; and as a result of generalized popular fear in the USA of possible high-tech forms of terrorism, always portrayed in movies as in the hands of some unreasonable alien or foreign force.  

      The Trump administration may be attempting to reduce travel to Cuba, not by establishing further administrative and legal restrictions, but by provoking fear of travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens.  If successful, the strategy could lay the groundwork for further sanctions against Cuba, on the fallacious grounds that it is terrorist nation.  For the people of the United States, the best defense against this political and ideological maneuver is to develop and disseminate a solid understanding of what the Cuban Revolution really is.

       For a greater understanding of the Cuban Revolution, please see my book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The light in the darkness.