Western governments have recently expressed a willingness to “review” sanctions against Venezuela’s democratically elected government. Of course, this should be welcomed given the huge harm that sanctions have caused to Venezuela’s civilian population. But, as always, we must be skeptical of these governments’ motives. This latest move could simply be the next chapter in the ongoing regime change saga.
The United Nations (UN) General Assembly has voted on a motion to condemn the decades-long US embargo against Cuba. The vast majority of the world’s nations supported the resolution. But two countries voted against it. It will come as a surprise to no one which two countries they are.
Biden’s infrastructure deal shows how ‘bipartisanship’ is Washington codeword for continuation of the center-right status quo
President Biden recently announced that his administration has struck a deal with senators on the long-touted infrastructure bill that he had promised voters during his 2020 presidential campaign. He seemed particularly pleased by the fact that senators from both of the major parties had agreed to the deal. He said that the development reminded him “of the days we used to get an awful lot done up in the United States Congress.” He added: “We actually worked with one another. We had bipartisan deals. Bipartisan deals means compromise.”
Nicaragua has been under heavy fire from the corporate-owned media lately. The government of Daniel Ortega has arrested several opposition figures in the midst of an upcoming election. The US government and corporate media have been expressing their outrage about what they consider to be the growing dictatorial nature of the Ortega ‘regime’.
But there is more to the story than they let on. A deeper investigation shows that the situation is not as clear-cut as they make out. And as is so often the case with Latin America, it falls to independent media to add some nuance and balance to the flagrantly right-leaning and pro-Washington coverage of the corporate-owned press.
After a series of short-term presidents following the resignation of scandal-plagued then-president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski in March 2018, Peruvians went to the polls this month to elect a new leader. The race is very tight with just 0.3% separating the two candidates. But the frontrunner, a socialist newcomer, now looks all but certain to win. And that opens the possibility of an exciting new future for a country ravaged by years of corruption, human rights abuses, and neoliberalism.
Even The New York Times Now Admits That It’s US Sanctions, Not Socialism, That’s Destroying Venezuela
The facile right-wing talking point that the economic crisis facing Venezuela “proves” that “socialism always ends in failure” has become so hackneyed by overuse that it has attained its own tongue-in-cheek name. The ad Venezuelum, as it has come to be known, has slowly developed into such a tedious and predictable right-wing tactic that it seems to now serve as an all-purpose retort to try to discredit even the most modest of left-of-center proposals. In October 2018, for instance, then-President Trump responded to a plan by progressive Democrats in congress to introduce a bill to establish a system of universal public healthcare – something which every industrialized country other than the US already has – by stating: “It’s going to be a disaster for our country. It will turn our country into a Venezuela.”
For decades, the most widely touted solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict has been based on two independent states. Known as the ‘two-state solution’, this proposal has enjoyed widespread support from the vast majority of the world’s nations, including the US and all of its European allies. It’s also the favored plan of regional and supranational institutions such as the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN).
In the wake of Israel’s latest massacre in Gaza, however, prominent former supporters of the two-state solution are beginning to express doubt about its viability. Some are even openly coming out in favor of the rival one-state solution. Formerly considered a fringe proposal within conventional discourse, the latter is now looking more and more mainstream. And given the high profile of some of its new-found proponents, there is the possibility that it might soon eclipse the rival two-state framework.
Throughout his time as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn was subjected to a vicious, politically motivated smear campaign. This was based in large part on the claim that Labour had seen a dramatic increase in antisemitism amongst its membership during Corbyn’s leadership.
However, as The Canary has previously argued, of the respective leaders of the UK’s two major political parties during the 2019 general election, it was in fact Boris Johnson that had far more to answer for in terms of antisemitism. Now, that reality has been confirmed by Johnson’s latest guest at Downing Street. And this, in turn, raises the question of whether Jeremy Corbyn should be given another chance to face Johnson at the next general election.
As Israel’s latest massacre in Gaza has unfolded over the last few weeks, international outrage has injected a surge of energy into the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Over the past few years, BDS has emerged as one of the most vibrant and promising tools in working towards ending Israeli apartheid and the occupation of Palestine.
In an exclusive interview with The Canary earlier in May, Prof. Ilan Pappé (himself an Israeli Jew) described BDS as “an excellent organization that galvanizes and knows how to use solidarity in the most effective way”. Naturally, figures on the political right have been aggressively mobilizing to discredit BDS and its supporters. And the hackneyed charge of antisemitism forms a large part of their toolkit. This is obviously ridiculous, not least because a significant amount of BDS supporters are themselves Jewish – including members of Jewish Voice for Peace.
There is, however, a more sophisticated criticism levelled by opponents of BDS. And that is the charge of hypocrisy towards those who support sanctions against Israel yet oppose sanctions against US adversaries such as Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Now this may be more superficially persuasive than the facile antisemitism smear. But a more nuanced analysis shows that there is, in fact, no contradiction here.