GHEDDAFI, LA PRIMAVERA DEI POPOLI MEDIORIENTALE E IL PUNTO DI VISTA LATINOAMERICANO
Gennaro Carotenuto
Latin America is far from the Middle East, and not Just try to understand what is happening in Libya and the Middle East by reading the press in Latin America. Disorientation and in some cases there would still be very disappointed to find news about improbable events in favor of Gaddafi, on the order that prevails in Tripoli, or at most a rubber-stamping agency subcontractors through clenched teeth. If it is correct to report a possible foreign intervention, the dangers of fragmentation in the country, or even disinformation at work, the silence of multilateral organizations, from Unasur and Mercosur, it is now deafening. Do not go better with i governi, con l’eccezione del Perù e dell’Uruguay. Dal Brasile all’Argentina, da Cuba al Nicaragua al Venezuela, relazioni e alleanze storiche, preoccupazioni geopolitiche, timori e sottovalutazioni, fanno sì che l’America latina dei movimenti sociali, l’America latina altermondista e terzomondista delle relazioni Sud-Sud, sembri non comprendere e voltare le spalle alla primavera dei popoli mediorientale e non faccia una bella figura (né i suoi interessi né il suo dovere).
La distanza si fa incolmabile nell’interpretazioni dei fatti libici, tutta geopolitica e ideologica. In Libia sarebbe guerra civile e non sollevazione popolare, in una forma interpretativa dove le aspirazioni dei popoli, motivations of young people in the square, the balance of power through repression, no place. In particular media such as Telesur, but does not go much better with the Jornada or page 12, or the progressive Latin American cream information, read the facts only in insufficient optical geoenergetica. Media that while the mainstream disinformation manure scattered in handfuls, have enlightened the world on the Zapatista uprising of 1994, or the fall of the neoliberal regime in Argentina in 2001 and the coup in Honduras in 2009, now take refuge in the comfort of an interpretation completely simplistic, "the Amerikan want the Libyan oil."
About a hundred years trying to create il proprio spazio nel mondo lottando contro le ripetute aggressioni statunitensi (militari, economiche, mediatiche), chi da questo deve difendere le proprie ricchezze e in particolare il proprio petrolio con le unghie e con i denti, chi vede sistematicamente finanziare dall’estero opposizioni eversive, non riesce a leggere (o non vuol leggere, anche per motivi di propaganda) gli eventi libici che in una sola ottica: Gheddafi difende il petrolio libico dall’attacco imperialista. Bastano poche frasi anticolonialiste del battutaro libico, massacratore di migranti in ossequio alle sacre direttive dell’Unione Europea e compagno di bunga bunga di Silvio Berlusconi, per infervorare a suo favore molti tra quelli che in America latina hanno una storia crystalline struggle for self-determination and against foreign interference. In particular the interpretation of the Venezuelan government becomes totally realpolitik in the concern of losing an important ally in the key arena of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which was moribund and supine to Western interests when he went to the Hugo Chavez government in Venezuela and that was important, especially on Venezuela to become a factor of multipolarity in the world today.
concerns of NATO's intervention is legitimate but perhaps exaggerated and mostly hide a massacre that is already in place. In this editorial of Fidel Castro widely republished and commented on in the world is impeccable care and also to condemn the repression. But the interpretation of Fidel is all for the thesis "civil war", discarding the possibility of a popular uprising in progress and the awakening of civil society Libyan simultaneously, in the wake of the Net, with that of other peoples of the region.
What we are seeing in Libya would be the beginning of a "color revolution" other-directed or the West is another popular uprising against autocrats friendly to the West? Between hope and concern Fidel choose the interpretative key of fear. Hugo Chávez is also right to criticize the double moral of the international community in condemning Gaddafi and remain silent on the U.S. chemical bombs on Fallujah, sull'assedio Israeli Gaza and the systematic massacres of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Chavez is right and his chancellor Nicolás Maduro to point out the danger of Western intervention and the division of the country at this moment more than one of those who look with horror the events Libyans consider desirable. But Chavez also choose the key of "civil war", which unfortunately takes sides with Qaddafi, against popular opposition that considers hetero-and implicitly treats the opposition, the so subversive, it faces a home.
It is also true that some press reports seem exaggerated schematic (African mercenaries paid € 12,000 to murder to 10,000 deaths, rapes, house by house, even the video on graves) leading once again to be cautious about misinformation as always scattered by the handful from the mainstream. But you can not act as if Gaddafi is massacring its own people and as if the previous bombing of popular events is not just that of the gorilla Argentine Peronist against the people in 1955 to force the first unpopular dictatorship and fondomonetarista.
Many of the concerns are legitimate but also true that Latin American leaders and information appear to underestimate the fundamental aspects of what is happening in Libya and, more generally in the Middle East. No, we are not living in the Middle East a new color revolution by Washington-directed and blessed by the International Monetary Fund. In the Middle East are at the beginning, just at the beginning of a "springtime of peoples" similar to Europe back in 1848 when he lived in a few months, and without any preset agenda, got rid of the governments of Restoration required the defeat of Napoleon I. Complicated as it sounds, and Latin American integrationist duty to abide by its own genesis and support without fear that Middle Eastern nations are getting rid of autocratic regimes often backed by the West for decades. E 'duty of Latin America once again reveal the lie of' exporting democracy "and put the fires of rebellion that were born in the South.
At this time the western governments, particularly the most discredited of all, the Italian one, bragging are the risks of creating governments based on Islamic fundamentalism to impose a new generation of autocrats who do that all changes because nothing changes. But there are not many beards or burqas in the streets as in Benghazi yesterday in Cairo and one in Tunis yesterday. E se ci sono l’obbiettivo dev’essere appoggiare quei ragazzi sbarbati e quelle ragazze dal volto scoperto perché siano in grado di esprimere una classe dirigente alternativa. Se nessuno crede nei popoli del Medio oriente l’America latina deve credere nei popoli del Medio oriente. Non c’è altra via, per l’America latina, che riconoscere nei ragazzi egiziani, tunisini, libici, domani ojalá sauditi, le stesse aspirazioni e le stesse speranze che hanno strutturato negli anni ‘90 i movimenti sociali latinoamericani che hanno saputo farsi governo. Fino a ieri le relazioni Sud-Sud erano affare (importante) dei governi. Adesso la sfida diventa far diventare popolari tali relazioni Sud-Sud.
Per arrivare this is essential to recognize the political enemy and Gaddafi not only the (whatever) geopolitical ally. We can not condemn the crimes committed against migrants from the United States, European Union and governments like that of Felipe Calderón in Mexico if we do not recognize Muammar Gaddafi in the slaughter of migrants on behalf of Silvio Berlusconi and other European governments. Perhaps they are false graves shown by the media, but they are not false graves in Libya where in recent years have ended the hopes of thousands of African migrants. When in 2008 throughout Latin America, Fidel, Chavez, Lula, Evo, exploded against the shame of the European directives against migrants, Gaddafi was at the EU contract out some of these crimes and do business with Gaddafi that the dismal Cameron, the sad Sarkozy el'impresentabile Berlusconi. The Europeans were the instigators, but Gaddafi was the assassin of those migrants.
On the other hand it is undeniable that although Libya is not an ongoing "genocide," Gaddafi is repressing its own people with a ferocity intolerable unpresentable, unforgivable. Perhaps the dead are not 10,000 as the system tells uninformative mainstream, but they are hundreds. And it is hardly a disgrace to Telesur amendment that Al Jazeera is a strategic partner when she tells the U.S. and Israeli crimes but should be obscured when told of the Libyan people who rebel. We would like to see on Telesur images of children in Benghazi leading into the square images Omar al Mukhtar, the hero of the struggle against Italian colonialism. E 'with them which must be Latin America!
February 26, 2011
site http://www.gennarocarotenuto.it/
0 comments:
Post a Comment