International News

Montenegro & splintering of former Yugoslovia

A deterioration of conditions, similar to the former Soviet Union has occurred in the former Yugoslavia. MONTENEGRO: Majority vote for independence Michael Karadjis From Green Left Weekly, June 7, 2006.at www.greenleft.org

Latest developments in Serbia and tiny Montenegro, including a degenerate gangster form of capitalism similar to that found in Russia today.

Montenegrins voted for independence for their tiny republic in a referendum on May 21, in a move that essentially formalised an already existing situation. Following the collapse of the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia between 1989 and 1992, two former republics, Serbia and Montenegro, agreed to set up a new federation, which they also called “Yugoslavia” (without the “socialist” label). Montenegrins voted by a margin of 96%, to join this federation as a sovereign state. However, in the late 1990s Montenegrin leader Milo Djukanovic, developed differences with Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, and began campaigning to end the federation. Both the European Union and the United States strongly opposed this push for independence, fearful of any instability resulting from further break-up in the Balkans.

In particular, they feared that Montenegrin independence could set an example to the Albanian majority in Kosova, a formerly highly autonomous province of the old Yugoslavia, now brutally oppressed under direct Serbian rule. Even when the US and EU courted Djukanovic during NATO's terror bombing of Serbia in 1999, they continued to oppose independence, instead aiming to push Djukanovic into alliance with various opposition forces in Serbia. When Milosevic was overthrown in 2000, the West had still less need for Djukanovic.

The new rulers in Belgrade, largely elements associated with the old regime seeking to restabilise their capitalist rule without being tainted by the crimes of Milosevic, violated the Yugoslav constitution by maintaining representatives of the Montenegrin opposition parties, rather than the elected ruling party, in the federal government. This meant the Montenegrin government was excluded from the federation, which began to fall apart. The final nail in its coffin occurred in 2001 when the Serbian government of Zoran Djindjic wanted to extradite Milosevic to the Hague. Since it could not get agreement from the federal government because it was blocked by the Montenegrin opposition representative, it simply violated the Yugoslav constitution and carried out its plan.

To avert the formal end of the federation, which had in fact ceased to exist, EU chief Javier Solana stepped in and forced Djukanovic to postpone his proposed referendum for at least three years, while restructuring the federation under the new name “Serbia and Montenegro”. Only the foreign and defence ministries were shared, along with a largely symbolic federal president. The federal government rarely met. Everything else belonged to the actual republic governments. The two republics ran completely separate economies, with different currencies. Montenegro’s economy was oriented towards the Adriatic sea, while the much larger economy of Serbia was oriented to the Danube and central Europe. Between them an almost impassable mountain range gave their separate economies a further practical distance.

Palestinian Isreali dispute, without U.S. slant

It is as though the Israelis have learnt from the Nazis: for the death of one done by the resistance forces, they kill hundreds of innocent civilians. One does not cure the behavior hate engenders by violence and imprisonment—jk. PALESTINE: Israel escalates brutal war Rohan Pearce7/5/6, from www.greenleft.org Following Israel’s missile attack on the office of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza City on July 2, the Israeli military issued a statement claiming it was intended to ''secure the safe return’‘ of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was captured by Palestinian militants one week earlier. Haniyeh was not in his office at the time of the strike.

Following Israel’s missile attack on the office of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza City on July 2, the Israeli military issued a statement claiming it was intended to ''secure the safe return’‘ of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was captured by Palestinian militants one week earlier. Haniyeh was not in his office at the time of the strike.

“Is it not astonishing”, asked Ali Abunimah, founder of the well-respected Electronic Intifada website, “that the entire world knows the name and face of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, while the hundreds of Palestinian children held in Israel’s dungeons, not to mention 10,000 adult prisoners, thousands held without charge and trial, abducted from their homes in the middle of the night by Israeli occupation forces, remain nameless and faceless before a silent world?”

Abunimah was speaking on the June 28 edition of US radio show Democracy Now about the Israeli military “incursion” in the Gaza Strip. The trigger for “Operation Summer Rain” - the Israeli codename for the invasion, which began on June 28 - was ostensibly the capture of Shalit, a corporal in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) who was seized during a raid on an Israeli military outpost near the Kerem Shalom border crossing. This is one of the main bases from which the IDF has been conducting its continual shelling of Gaza. Responsibility for the guerrilla attack has been claimed by the Popular Resistance Committees.

Aljazeera reported on June 25 that a PRC official said the raid was a response to Israel’s June 8 assassination of Jamal Abu Samhadana, who was the PRC’s founder and director-general of the interior ministry of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Khaled Amayreh reported in the June 29 edition of the Egypt-based Al Ahram that it was “obvious from the onset that the abduction of the soldier was intended to pressure Israel into releasing Palestinian children and women languishing in Israeli jails, mostly on concocted charges based on false confessions extracted by way of torture and coercion”.

Iran's ties to Hezbollah

Examining Iran’s ties to Hezbollah Just how much influence does the Islamic Republic wield over Hezbollah? By William O. Beeman, Professor of Ahntrhopology and Middle East Studies at Brown University and author of serval books on related topics. From In These Times, a pro-labor monthly publication, also available on the web at http://www.inthesetimes.com

The conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah had hardly begun when the Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters began blaming Iran for the conflagration. On July 25, Henry Crumpton, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, told a reporter that Iran is “clearly directing a lot of Hezbollah actions. Hezbollah asks their permission to do things, especially if it has broader international implications.” Meanwhile, in the July 24 Weekly Standard, William Kristol called Hezbollah’s fighting an “act of Iranian aggression” and suggested “we might consider countering [it] … with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.”

However, giving Iran another tongue lashing, or worse, deciding to attack it, will do nothing to stop the violence in the region. Not only is there no evidence that Iran had a role in instigating this round of violence, the possibility itself is unlikely.

Iran’s control over Hezbollah has been steadily declining since approximately 1996, during the reformist presidency of Mohammad Khatami. Money does continue to come “from Iran” to support Hezbollah, but not the Iranian government. Instead, it’s private religious foundations that direct the bulk of support, primarily to Hezbollah’s charitable activities. Nor are the amounts crucial to Hezbollah’s survival; even the high estimate frequently cited in the press—$200 million per annum—is a fraction of Hezbollah’s operating funds. However, the most important reason for not targeting Iran for the continued fighting in Lebanon is that this conflict is antithetical to Iran’s interests.

Neoconservatives clearly have another agenda in attacking Iran besides stopping Hezbollah. By blaming Iran for this latest flare-up, neoconservatives are following their decade-long program to encourage a military attack against the Islamic Republic.

The broad assertion that Iran supports Hezbollah is verifiable, but it is important to understand what the nature of this support is, and the extent to which Iran is able to influence the actions of this Shi’ite Lebanese group.

Ministers Resign to force Blair out

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/;jsessionid=LTZMXOKOPSQWTQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0 Minister resigns in attempt to force Blair exit

Tony Blair's administration has been dealt what may turn out to be a fatal blow by the resignation of seven members of his Government. Tom Watson, the under-secretary of state for defence, wrote to Mr Blair this morning telling him that it was no longer in the interests of Labour or of the country for him to remain Prime Minister. This afternoon six parliamentary private secretaries - MPs on the lowest rung of the Government ladder - also handed in their resignations. Khalid Mahmood, Wayne David, Ian Lucas, Mark Tami and David Wright said they had to leave because Mr Blair had not "ended the uncertainty" over when he intends to step down. Chris Mole also quit his post as parliamentary private secretary to Phil Woolas, communities minister. The Prime Minister responded immediately by describing Mr Watson as "disloyal, discourteous and wrong" and saying that he had planned to fire him anyway. And he warned Labour MPs that they risk consigning the party to electoral defeat if they continue to call for his resignation. The six Government members who resigned today are all understood to be among the 17 MPs who signed a confidential letter to Mr Blair yesterday urging him to name a date for his departure. Mr Watson's resignation will have all the more impact as he is known as a Blairite loyalist, who formerly served as a Government whip and was expected to rise through the ministerial ranks under the Prime Minister. In his letter, released to the press, Mr Watson wrote: "It is with the greatest sadness that I have to say that I no longer believe that your remaining in office is in the interest of either the party or the country. "How and why this situation has arisen no longer matters. I share the view of the overwhelming majority of the party and the country that the only way the party and the Government can renew itself in office is urgently to renew its leadership." Last night it was reported that Mr Blair had set a date for his departure of May 31 next year, in an effort to curb demands for his immediate resignation. An eight-week leadership election campaign will follow allowing a new leader — the favourite being Gordon Brown — to be chosen by July 26, when Mr Blair will step down as Prime Minister. No 10 described the claims as "speculative" but refused to deny their accuracy. If true, it would validate a report in The Daily Telegraph at the end of June that Mr Blair had decided to go next May after 10 years as Prime Minister. Yesterday two Blairite Cabinet ministers, David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, and Hilary Armstrong, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said they expected Mr Blair to go within a year.

Tom Watson, the under-secretary of state for defence, wrote to Mr Blair this morning telling him that it was no longer in the interests of Labour or of the country for him to remain Prime Minister.

This afternoon six parliamentary private secretaries - MPs on the lowest rung of the Government ladder - also handed in their resignations.

Khalid Mahmood, Wayne David, Ian Lucas, Mark Tami and David Wright said they had to leave because Mr Blair had not "ended the uncertainty" over when he intends to step down.

Chris Mole also quit his post as parliamentary private secretary to Phil Woolas, communities minister.

Nicaraguan Voters Defy U.S. Threats

Despite a relentless campaign by the Bush administration to derail his election, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega won Nicaragua’s November 5 presidential election. Ortega, the candidate of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the country’s president from 1985 to 1990, won almost 40% of the vote in his race against four other candidates. That was more than enough to avoid a runoff against the US-backed candidate, Harvard-educated banker Eduardo Montealegre. For weeks, US officials pulled out all the stops to try to derail Ortega’s victory, including pressuring the country’s right-wing parties to come together behind a single candidate. But when conservatives remained divided between Montealegre and ruling party candidate Jose Rizo, the US turned to making dark threats in the event of an Ortega victory. US ambassador Paul Trivelli warned Nicaraguans not to vote for Ortega, promising some “surprises” in the run-up to the election. Republican member of Congress Dana Rohrabacher threatened an economic embargo against the impoverished country, while other politicians warned that the US might take action to block Nicaraguans living in the US from sending money home to Central America’s poorest country. But if anything, the anti-Ortega rhetoric and threats may have prompted more Nicaraguans — particularly the poor — to vote for Ortega as a protest against US intervention. Historically, the US not only propped up the brutal dictatorship of Anastazio Somoza, it also funded and armed the right-wing paramilitary contras, who carried out a bloody war against the left-wing Sandinista government following Somoza’s overthrow in 1979. The Bush administration even sent former White House aide Oliver North — best-known for his role in organising the secret illegal funding and arming of the contras during the Reagan administration — to warn Nicaraguans that an Ortega government would be faced with the cut-off of the country’s estimated US$220 million in annual aid. “Imagine Osama bin Laden visiting the United States 10 or 15 years from now”, wrote Mark Weisbrot, a Latin America expert at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “telling Americans who to vote for if they want to avoid getting hurt”. Today, Ortega insists that he is a “pragmatist” in favour of “reconciliation”. That was evident during his campaign, when he chose Jaime Morales — a former political opponent and contra supporter — as his running mate. Ortega has also held back from criticising the US, and promised that he would not institute drastic reforms that would threaten business interests. In the days leading up to the election, he supported a vote for a ban pushed by the Catholic Church outlawing all abortions, even when a woman’s life is in danger. The measure passed. Despite this, Ortega’s victory is worrying to the US for a number of reasons — especially his ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. “Though Ortega … is a pale shadow of his former self, having jettisoned his leftist rhetoric and hostility towards his northern neighbor, nevertheless, Washington must now recognize that it has patently failed to isolate Chavez diplomatically”, wrote author Nikolas Kozloff in an article on the CounterPunch website. “Ortega will be hampered in bringing about radical change, but will at least look upon Venezuela as an important regional ally and friend.” [From the US Socialist Worker, newspaper of the International Socialist Organization. Visit Socialistworker.org>.] From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #690 15 November 2006.

Ortega, the candidate of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the country’s president from 1985 to 1990, won almost 40% of the vote in his race against four other candidates. That was more than enough to avoid a runoff against the US-backed candidate, Harvard-educated banker Eduardo Montealegre. For weeks, US officials pulled out all the stops to try to derail Ortega’s victory, including pressuring the country’s right-wing parties to come together behind a single candidate. But when conservatives remained divided between Montealegre and ruling party candidate Jose Rizo, the US turned to making dark threats in the event of an Ortega victory. US ambassador Paul Trivelli warned Nicaraguans not to vote for Ortega, promising some “surprises” in the run-up to the election. Republican member of Congress Dana Rohrabacher threatened an economic embargo against the impoverished country, while other politicians warned that the US might take action to block Nicaraguans living in the US from sending money home to Central America’s poorest country. But if anything, the anti-Ortega rhetoric and threats may have prompted more Nicaraguans — particularly the poor — to vote for Ortega as a protest against US intervention. Historically, the US not only propped up the brutal dictatorship of Anastazio Somoza, it also funded and armed the right-wing paramilitary contras, who carried out a bloody war against the left-wing Sandinista government following Somoza’s overthrow in 1979. The Bush administration even sent former White House aide Oliver North — best-known for his role in organising the secret illegal funding and arming of the contras during the Reagan administration — to warn Nicaraguans that an Ortega government would be faced with the cut-off of the country’s estimated US$220 million in annual aid. “Imagine Osama bin Laden visiting the United States 10 or 15 years from now”, wrote Mark Weisbrot, a Latin America expert at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “telling Americans who to vote for if they want to avoid getting hurt”. Today, Ortega insists that he is a “pragmatist” in favour of “reconciliation”. That was evident during his campaign, when he chose Jaime Morales — a former political opponent and contra supporter — as his running mate. Ortega has also held back from criticising the US, and promised that he would not institute drastic reforms that would threaten business interests. In the days leading up to the election, he supported a vote for a ban pushed by the Catholic Church outlawing all abortions, even when a woman’s life is in danger. The measure passed. Despite this, Ortega’s victory is worrying to the US for a number of reasons — especially his ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. “Though Ortega … is a pale shadow of his former self, having jettisoned his leftist rhetoric and hostility towards his northern neighbor, nevertheless, Washington must now recognize that it has patently failed to isolate Chavez diplomatically”, wrote author Nikolas Kozloff in an article on the CounterPunch website. “Ortega will be hampered in bringing about radical change, but will at least look upon Venezuela as an important regional ally and friend.” [From the US Socialist Worker, newspaper of the International Socialist Organization. Visit Socialistworker.org>.]

Avian Flu--Lancet

Aviajn Flu Virus link to mass media articles From the Lancet, Europe’s most esteemed medical journal http://www.thelancet.com/collections/avian_flu/europe Europe wakes up to the threat of avian influenzaBen Aris

From the Lancet, Europe’s most esteemed medical journal http://www.thelancet.com/collections/avian_flu/europe Europe wakes up to the threat of avian influenzaBen Aris

It felt more like a war cabinet than a meeting of health professionals. But as the 130 delegates sat in WHO's European regional headquarters in Copenhagen 2 weeks ago (Oct 23-24), to discuss the long running problem of avian influenza virus H5N1, the daily news stories tracking the virus' advance across Europe gave the proceedings a sense of urgency.

"Can you be more specific?" lamented one harassed delegate from the Balkans who peppered the panel with questions. "You are giving us general guidelines, but I have to go back and see my health minister this week and I need to give him a concrete plan of action."

The vocabulary would have been the same if it were an army massing at Europe's eastern border. The scientists talked of making preparations in "peacetime". They studied the likely "attack rates" of the virus and the logistics of a response. They considered how long it would take to put the pharmaceutical industry on a war footing to make vaccine and what weapons we already have in our arsenal. There were even sessions on what sort of propaganda would be effective after the first wave of pandemic sweeps through Europe, largely unchecked. And of course they estimated the casualties.

"There are lots of unknowns but the experts emphasis that the possibility of a break out of the pandemic is sure", said Marc Danzon, the head of WHO's European regional office. "What is not known is when and where [it will strike first] . . . So we have to prepare the national health systems top face a potential crisis."

Globalization--Palast's ARMED MADHOUSE

Ever group has its own axe to grind. This is about banking and global companies and their chopping at the public weal. From the NYT best seller Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast, pgs 152-166. Penguin Books Ltd, 2066, also available on CD.

It is not exactly news, but rather a way of understanding the forces behind politics. This is about the influence of banking and international corporations on internal policies of nations around our planet. Palast describes the agenda of the Neocons which is the same as the WTO (World Trade Organization). They have a vision of a level field: no barriers to foreign ownership including basic services such as water and electricity, and to banking, and to trade. Also on their agendas is one currency, one set of laws, minimal government, no unions, and no government mandated workers’ benefits. This includes minimal regulations of the workplace including pollutants and working conditions. Part of this vision including the right to void environmental laws has been approved by our government in the NAFTA and other free trade agreements. The WTO wants a level field, one where every manufacturer in a developed country (and thus their industrial laborer and skilled workers) would be competing with manufacturers in China an India, and thus making a comparable wage with comparable benefits--jk.

Palast describes the agenda of the Neocons which is the same as the WTO (World Trade Organization). They have a vision of a level field: no barriers to foreign ownership including basic services such as water and electricity, and to banking, and to trade. Also on their agendas is one currency, one set of laws, minimal government, no unions, and no government mandated workers’ benefits. This includes minimal regulations of the workplace including pollutants and working conditions. Part of this vision including the right to void environmental laws has been approved by our government in the NAFTA and other free trade agreements. The WTO wants a level field, one where every manufacturer in a developed country (and thus their industrial laborer and skilled workers) would be competing with manufacturers in China an India, and thus making a comparable wage with comparable benefits--jk.

There is a problem with our President’s sales pitch for Social Security Privatization. The American economy is aging, and those big gains are history, long gone. Because our Social Security insurance payments purchase Treasury bills, our Social Security trust fund is, in effect, a giant bet on the U.S. economy. Our "profits" on this investment in ourselves, cautions Krugman, are "equal only to the rate of economic growth" in the USA. Think of the total value of all investments in the USA. Slice it any way you want—into stocks, bonds and Treasury bills held in private accounts or public accounts. Change the size of the slices or rename them from "public" to "private"—you can't increase the ultimate size of the America pie.

Remember: There is no America, Mr. Beale. It is the international sys­tem of currency that determines the totality of life on this planet.

The USA's economy grows by 4% in a very good year. But China is rising at 9% per year, twice as fast as America. There is one flaw in Krugman's calculations. Krugman's one error is that he's a patriot, and therefore cannot understand our rulers' cold agenda. As professor Joseph White of Case Western Reserve University explained to me:

French elect conservative President--April 07

It seems that like the election of Clinton, the French have elected a Neoliberal in reformist clothing. Legislative record has revealed Clinton’s true colors—the major difference is that he proceeded at a slower pace. Time will reveal the true colors of the French President--jk. Misreading the French Election By Benjamin R. Barber WWW.Huffinngtonpost.com 5/8/07

Republican conservatives reeling from President Bush's plummeting poll numbers, as low as President Carter's during the dark days of the hostage crisis in Iran, are excited. They have discovered hope in -- of all places -- France! Yes, the nation at the very center of what they disdained as "old" Europe, the country that has been Bush's bete noire ever since he went looking for WMD in Baghdad. The very same culture whose potatoes had to be renamed Freedom Fries so patriotic Congressmen wouldn't have to utter the dreaded "F" word when ordering lunch in the Capitol mess hall. Why the sudden love fest? Because the French just voted in a "conservative" for president, dismissing his rival, a feminist fem named Segolene Royal as pretty as she was ballsy. She snatched the Socialist nomination from her companion, Socialist Party Chair Francois Hollande, with whom she has four children, only to give up a six-point victory (53% to 47% with a huge turnout of over 80%) to the son of Hungarian immigrants. Which to the Republicans apparently proves the French have wised up to wily women like Hillary Clinton and have figured out that Bush is a friend of liberty, you know, like Chancellor Merkel in Germany, and are ready to cede power back to Washington. Only it's not so simple. As usual, the Republicans are misreading international events. Sarkozy certainly stirred up right-wing populist passions against Muslim immigrants and the "thugs" and "scum" (as he called the unemployed and angry mobs of teens in the immigrant suburbs), and he owes his victory to the old -- the young voted against him. But he also got a majority of women -- they didn't go for Royal's message about sisterly solidarity. Most importantly, he triumphed as an anti-establishmentarian promising to break up the old elites trained in the "grandes ecoles" and free up the entrepreneurial environment, long encased in a paralytic bureaucracy. He wants France to join the world and stop wallowing in nostalgia for its old civilizing mission and its vanished empire. He wants better relations with the United States, but he is as opposed to the Iraq adventure as Chirac, his predecessor at the Palais Elysee. In other words, though he has exploited populist and nationalist resentments, he is first of all a modernizer who thinks France of the ancient regime has rendered itself irrelevant. As a nationalist, he is likely to enhance not American but French power. His election certainly reflects the appeal of nationalist politics, but it is signals not a return to but a striking break with the past. My advice to Republicans: in reading the triangle of Jacques Chirac (outgoing Gaullist President), Royal (failed left-centrist candidate) and Nicolas Sarkozy (successful right-centrist modernizer) Bush and his Republican wannabes are not Sarkozy, but Chirac, the tired, stubborn, out-of-touch-with reality ideologue. While Hillary may be, no not Royal, but the pragmatic and realist Sarkozy. In other words, the French election suggests why the Republicans are likely not to win but to lose the presidency in 2008. NOTE JK: Jacques Chirac the outgoing aged president was in bed with the Neoliberals (much like Clinton). His internal policies included lowering taxes for his contributors, business privatization, laissez-fare capitalism, and he was the most senior member of the G8. He was elected as a Gaullist for a seat in the National Assembly in 1967. He was Prime Minister in a conservative government form 1974 to 1976. From 1977 to 1995 he was Mayor of Paris. Recently there has been much made in the press of political corruption, in particular the selling off of city assets to a business headed by his friend. And this was not an isolated case that was exposed concerning Chirac’s years as Mayor of Paris. The failure of his party to win in the poles in April is complex. Reasons would include his (and thus his party’s) corruption, his party’s conservative and Neoliberal policies, and the people’s desire for a change. The troubling fact is that Neoliberal takeover, which has occurred in the U.S. is occurring in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. Money talks; and the corporate media has created a misinformed populace.

The very same culture whose potatoes had to be renamed Freedom Fries so patriotic Congressmen wouldn't have to utter the dreaded "F" word when ordering lunch in the Capitol mess hall.

Why the sudden love fest? Because the French just voted in a "conservative" for president, dismissing his rival, a feminist fem named Segolene Royal as pretty as she was ballsy. She snatched the Socialist nomination from her companion, Socialist Party Chair Francois Hollande, with whom she has four children, only to give up a six-point victory (53% to 47% with a huge turnout of over 80%) to the son of Hungarian immigrants.

Which to the Republicans apparently proves the French have wised up to wily women like Hillary Clinton and have figured out that Bush is a friend of liberty, you know, like Chancellor Merkel in Germany, and are ready to cede power back to Washington.

Only it's not so simple. As usual, the Republicans are misreading international events. Sarkozy certainly stirred up right-wing populist passions against Muslim immigrants and the "thugs" and "scum" (as he called the unemployed and angry mobs of teens in the immigrant suburbs), and he owes his victory to the old -- the young voted against him. But he also got a majority of women -- they didn't go for Royal's message about sisterly solidarity.

Latin American Bank for Economic Development Established

Latin America Banks on Independence; The new Bank of the South shatters neoliberal economics By Mark Engler for In These Times at http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3497/latin_america_banks_on_independence/

By Mark Engler for In These Times at http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3497/latin_america_banks_on_independence/

A New banking system for South America to make available loans with a different agenda from that of the IMF and its neoliberal requirements.

In the closing weeks of 2007, a region in revolt against the economics of corporate globalization issued its most unified declaration of independence to date.

On Dec. 9, standing before the flags of their countries, the presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay and Venezuela, along with a representative from Uruguay, gathered in Buenos Aires and signed the founding charter of the Banco del Sur, or the Bank of the South.

The Bank of the South will allow participating governments to use a percentage of their collective currency reserves to strengthen Latin America’s economy and promote