• Slee repeats this chant in post after post. It implies that the Delcy Rodriguez government is anti-imperialist and a champion of the Venezuelan working people: the regime can make a mistake, no more. The fact, however, is that the regime is now a junior partner of US imperialism, a regime of local bourgeois rentiers and capitalists.

• Die gruwelijkheden werden vastgelegd door christelijke missionarissen die in Congo werkten en hun rapportages veroorzaakten internationale verontwaardiging

• Leopold II richtte in de jaren 1890 kinderkolonies op. De kolonies werden geleid door katholieke missionarissen en waren bedoeld voor onderwijs, maar werden allengs een kweekvijver voor het leger. Het waren de enige scholen die door de staat werden gefinancierd. Congolese kinderen uit dorpen werden gedwongen hierin gestuurd. Meer dan 50% van de kinderen die naar deze scholen werden gestuurd stierven aan ziekte, en nog eens duizenden stierven in de gedwongen mars naar de koloniën. In een dergelijke mars werden 108 jongens naar een zendingsschool gestuurd en slechts 62 overleefden, van wie er acht een week later stierven.^[18]

    

• Er vond een grote bevolkingsafname plaats tijdens de periode dat Leopold II het bewind voerde, maar schattingen van het dodental variëren aanzienlijk. Schattingen van enkele hedendaagse onderzoekers suggereren dat de bevolking in deze periode met de helft is afgenomen. Volgens Edmund Dene Morel telde Congo-Vrijstaat 20 miljoen mensen.^[30] Ascherson citeert een schatting door Roger Casement van een bevolkingsdaling van drie miljoen, hoewel hij opmerkt dat het "vrijwel zeker een onderschatting is".^[29] Peter Forbath gaf een cijfer van ten minste 5 miljoen doden,^[31] terwijl John Gunther ook een cijfer van 5 miljoen verdedigt als een minimale schatting en 8 miljoen als het maximum.^[32]

    

• Bij het ontbreken van een volkstelling die zelfs een eerste idee gaf van de omvang van de bevolking van de regio bij het begin van Congo-Vrijstaat (de eerste volkstelling werd ondernomen in 1924),^[33] is het onmogelijk om de populatieveranderingen in de periode te kwantificeren. Desondanks beweerde Forbath dat het verlies ten minste vijf miljoen bedroeg.^[14] Adam Hochschild en Jan Vansina gebruiken het aantal van 10 miljoen. Hochschild haalt verschillende recente onafhankelijke onderzoekslijnen aan, door antropoloog Jan Vansina en anderen, die lokale bronnen onderzoeken (politieregisters, religieuze archieven, orale tradities, genealogieën, persoonlijke dagboeken). Deze komen over het algemeen overeen met de beoordeling van de Belgische overheidscommissie van 1919: grofweg de helft van de bevolking stierf tijdens de Vrijstaat-periode.^[bron?] Aangezien de eerste officiële telling door de Belgische autoriteiten in 1924 aan een bevolkingsaantal kwam van ongeveer 10 miljoen, suggereren deze verschillende benaderingen een totaal van ruwweg 10 miljoen doden.^[34] Jan Vansina keerde terug naar de kwestie van het kwantificeren van de totale bevolkingsafname en herzag zijn eerdere positie, hij concludeerde dat de Kuba-bevolking (een van de vele Congolese bevolkingsgroepen) steeg tijdens de eerste twee decennia van Leopold II's heerschappij en daalde met 25 procent van 1900 tot 1919, voornamelijk vanwege ziekte.^[35][36] Anderen beargumenteerden een afname van 20 procent gedurende de eerste veertig jaar van koloniale overheersing (tot de volkstelling van 1924). Volgens historicus Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem stierven 13 miljoen mensen.^[37] Er bestaan echter geen verifieerbare gegevens. Louis en Stengers stellen dat bevolkingscijfers aan het begin van Leopolds controle slechts "wilde gissingen" zijn, terwijl ze de poging van ED Morel en anderen om tot een cijfer voor bevolkingsverliezen te komen, niet meer dan "verzinsels" vinden.^[38] Auteurs die wijzen op het gebrek aan betrouwbare demografische gegevens worden echter in twijfel getrokken door anderen die hen minimalisten en agnostici noemen.^[39]

    

• In 2020 formuleert Sanderson een schatting van de bevolkingsafname onder de heerschappij van Leopold II, gebaseerd op zowel historische data uit Congo-Vrijstaat alsook data betreffende andere historische gevallen van massasterfte. Sanderson concludeert dat het meest waarschijnlijke scenario een bevolkingsafname is van ongeveer 1,5 miljoen, van 11,5 miljoen inwoners in 1885 tot ongeveer 10 a 10,3 miljoen inwoners na de val van Congo-Vrijstaat. Deze bevolkingsafname wijt Sanderson aan een combinatie van een verlaagde fertiliteit en een verhoogde mortaliteit veroorzaakt door ziekte, honger en gewapend geweld.^[41]

    
• Term "genocide"
• Historici zijn het er over het algemeen over eens dat uitroeiing nooit het beleid van de Vrijstaat was. Historicus David Van Reybrouck schrijft: "Het is grotesk om [...] van een 'genocide' of 'holocaust' te gewagen; want een genocide veronderstelt een bewuste, geplande vernietiging van een specifieke bevolkingsgroep en dat was hier nooit de bedoeling, noch het resultaat [...] Maar het was wel een hekatombe, een slachting op ongelooflijke schaal die niet bedoeld was, maar wel veel sneller begrepen had kunnen worden als collateral damage van een perfide, roofzuchtige exploitatiepolitiek".^[43] Historica Barbara Emerson verklaarde: “Leopold startte geen genocide. Hij was hebzuchtig en koos ervoor om niet geïnteresseerd te zijn wanneer dingen uit de hand liepen.”^[44]

• Beschuldigingen van genocide in de Vrijstaat zijn in de loop van de tijd gemeengoed geworden.^[42] Politicoloog Martin Ewans schreef: "Het Afrikaanse regime van Leopold werd een synoniem voor uitbuiting en genocide."^[46] Volgens historicus Timothy J. Stapleton : "Degenen die de term genocide toepassen op het regime van Leopold lijken dit alleen te doen op basis van de overduidelijke gruwel en het massale aantal mensen dat mogelijk is omgekomen."^[42] Robert Weisbord betoogde dat er niet de bedoeling hoeft te zijn om alle leden van een populatie uit te roeien om van genocide te kunnen spreken.^[25] Hij stelde dat "een poging om een deel van een volk te elimineren in aanmerking zou komen als genocide" volgens de VN-normen en verdedigde de stelling dat de Vrijstaat dit ook deed. Jeanne Haskin en Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi noemden de wreedheden ook een genocide.^[42] Lemkin, bedenker van de term "genocide", schreef in de jaren 1950 een manuscript (het werd niet gepubliceerd) dat stelde dat de daden in de Vrijstaat kunnen beschouwd worden als "een ondubbelzinnige genocide", en schreef het grootste deel van de bevolkingsdaling aan de repressieve acties van koloniale troepen toe.^[42] In 2005 vroeg een motie in het Britse Lagerhuis, geïntroduceerd door Andrew Dismore, om de erkenning van de wreedheden van de Congo-Vrijstaat als een "koloniale genocide" en riep de Belgische regering op om zich formeel te verontschuldigen. De motie werd gesteund door 48 parlementsleden.^[47]

    
• Historicus Idesbald Goddeeris bekritiseerde deze werken – inclusief Van Reybrouks Congo: Een geschiedenis – voor het afzwakken van de wreedheden begaan in de Congolese Vrijstaat, zeggend: "Ze erkennen de donkere periode van de Vrijstaat Congo, maar ... ze benadrukken dat het aantal slachtoffers onbekend was en dat de terreur geconcentreerd was in bepaalde regio's."^[49]

7 more annotations...

• In the capital Caracas earlier this month, CNN found a palpable edginess about the future from Venezuelans regardless of political leaning. They have witnessed Maduro’s arrest and detention in New York and have seen the US buoy the rest of his government. Glitzy high-profile events promise the return of massive foreign investments. But the deprivation that spurred millions of Venezuelans to leave their country in the last decade — many coming to the US — is still obvious in the empty refrigerators and bare pantry shelves in many homes. 

    

• Venezuela’s new leader, Delcy Rodríguez, says she sees a “rebirth” for her country. But many of the people CNN spoke with said the US will decide whether their country succeeds or fails. 

    

• It was the latest big media moment encouraged by the US. Along with the resumption of flights came visa approvals that had been pending for months. But the plane itself held fewer than 100 passengers. And so far, there’s only a few flights a day — albeit with hopes and promises for more. 

    

• Many of the people out and about were merely standing in line — waiting hours for buses as the only affordable transportation to get them home or to a second job. There was much to buy from fresh fruits to Ferraris, and plenty of American brands like Coca-Cola and Doritos, but few were shopping because they struggle to afford the basics. 

    

• Political activist Sairam Rivas feels safe enough to wear a t-shirt demanding “Free all political prisoners” in public. But she and her partner Jesús Armas still feel the eyes of the state around them. 

    

     

   
• Jesús Armas and Sairam Rivas said repression has eased amid the new amnesty that led to Armas being released from detention.   

     

   

   

     

    

• “Actually, he was really happy,” Armas said of the officer who told the prisoners of the raid. “And almost all the guards inside El Helicoide were really happy.” 

    

• “There’s still repression going, but less,” said Rivas. Armas added he was followed by officers from the intelligence services so frequently he now recognizes them, although he does not believe he is in immediate danger of being detained. 

    
• let it open up to human rights.

• Aida Guevara, wearing a baseball jersey emblazoned with “America” across the front along with Venezuela flag glasses, said her country had gone backwards under socialism. 

    

• “I have a pension that isn’t enough to buy my medicine. I can’t buy it or keep it regularly in my home,” Guevara said. She said she hadn’t wanted the US intervention, but was grateful for Trump’s decision. 

    

• Support for the remains of Maduro’s government exists, though it’s more often seen on the walls than heard. 

    

     

   
• And food alone costs nearly three times that amount.

• “The blame for all of this is Delcy Rodríguez from Nicolás Maduro, from Hugo Chávez. They don’t put the Venezuelans as a priority. They only look to stay in power,” he said. 

    

• “They put the most important jobs of the country — to run the electricity company, the water company, or the oil industry — in the hands of loyalists. And these loyalists came from the army, came from the political party, but they don’t really have the education.” 

    

13 more annotations...

• Iran, which attended as an observer,

• Since the UAE is a member of BRICS, he had pointed remarks for Abu Dhabi, condemning its close alliance with Israel and the United States against Iran and dismissing its complaints that Iran attacked it, insisting that Iran only targeted US and Israeli facilities and personnel in the Emirates that were part of the war effort. The UAE insists that Iran hit neutral targets in the Emirates. Abu Dhabi was rocked yesterday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed that he had flown to the UAE during the assault on Iran, underlining the tight alliance between himself and Emirates President Mohammed Bin Zayed al-Nahayan. MBZ’s office denied the Israeli statement, but the denial was undermined when the Israeli army chief of staff also said he had visited the UAE during the war.

   

• His own, and Guevera’s guerrilla substitution for working class and peasant actions was the hallmark. Thereafter accession to power came when USA imperialism decided its own agents were clearly exposed. It is not necessary to rehearse Castro’s overtures to USA impeirlism, before finally being forced to become depndent upon then revisionist USSR imperilaims. Until the latter could not help… and this steady slide into dependency on tourism and medical exportism. I do not intend to rehearse all this, many have exposed and we did in the distinctly un-fashionable manner for the 1960s (only web-published in the 1990s -> http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm and http://ml-review.ca/aml/MLOB/GuerrilaEliteFIN.htm ).
• Some might well be asking - even now - at this bitter moment, "as we who look back why did our socialism fail?”

• But for Elías Jaua, a former vice-president under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela is today under US “military occupation,” “coercive tutelage” and “neo-colonial administration.” Speaking to LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, he said the Venezuelan state should be denouncing this “serious act of aggression”.

• This is based on what the Venezuelan government as well as Trump and [US Secretary of State Marco] Rubio have officially declared.

• So, undoubtedly, the public threat of a larger-scale military attack exists. This implies military coercion. It also explains what has happened since in Venezuela.

• The most visible aspect of his plan — and openly stated by the Trump administration — is controlling Venezuela’s oil sales and depositing the income into a US Treasury Department administered fund. Only some money will be handed back to allow the Venezuelan state to keep functioning.

• No further explanation is needed to comprehend the gravity of a situation where a nation has been forced to allow its main income stream to be administered by another country.

• Subsequently, the US’ goals then expanded to include gold and other strategic minerals. Venezuela’s foreign policy has also been curtailed on issues such as solidarity with Cuba, Iran and Palestine.

• After this strategy failed, the US government began openly involving itself in Venezuelan politics. This started when the Barack Obama administration declared Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary” threat.

• I believe this is when we lost what I call the “domestic management” of the national conflict. Despite all the foreign interference since 2002, at least until 2013 the conflict was managed democratically among domestic Venezuelan forces.

• But from 2014–15 onwards, the US started directly intervening in the attempts by domestic forces to secure a political resolution to the national conflict. They imposed conditions on, and sabotaged, agreements.

• I was part of the negotiating team in the Dominican Republic ahead of the 2018 elections, where we were on the verge of signing an agreement with the opposition. However, this was called off on the US’ instructions.

• Thus, negotiations stopped solely involving domestic forces. Both the opposition (which sought, encouraged and opened the doors to foreign intervention) and the government (which wanted to recognise the US as the sole negotiating partner) contributed to the loss of domestic management over the national conflict.

• On top of the economic tutelage and illegal and arbitrary administration of our resources, today the fundamental political decisions affecting Venezuela are not being resolved nor decided in Venezuela. The majority of political forces now look to the White House to see what they decide, to see when they will call elections and whom they will endorse as candidates.

• The main cause of the current political situation lies in having allowed the management, regulation and containment of the national conflict to slip from the hands of Venezuelans, especially over the past 10 years.
• People do not fully understand what our new status with the US is, but every day reality demonstrates that this status is that of a state under tutelage. This generates a sense of shame, which grows stronger daily.

• Underneath all the feelings being expressed on one side or the other about the country and the government, everyone wants the situation to improve. But there has been no significant change. Four months have passed and the day-to-day economic situation of Venezuelan families is worse than before January 3.

• First, because of US domestic politics. Trump plays heavily on linking domestic and international policy — what is known as “intermestic” politics.

• A key part of his program was that the US should stop promoting regime change in other countries. So, achieving his goals without removing the government in Caracas fitted perfectly with his rhetoric and election promises.

• That is why he tried to repeat the formula in Iran: assassinate the Ayatollah, leave the Iranian leadership in place, come to an understanding with them and say there was no regime change. I believe that was the intention.

• Second, the need for political stability and realising that the Venezuelan opposition lacked the leadership, strength and authority to guarantee political stability in the short term.

• Above all, the attack on Venezuela and kidnapping of Maduro and Cilia Flores must be understood as a prelude to the attack on Iran. Trump assessed that, by controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the US could risk going to war with Iran without being impacted by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, at least in terms of its energy security.

• Nevertheless, they are using all their lobbying mechanisms in the US to try and force an election in Venezuela, believing they will win.

• Very serious changes have occurred, such as allowing oil royalties to be set as low as zero. There can now be oil concessions where the concessionaire does not pay a single cent in royalties to the resource owner, which is the Venezuelan nation. This is one of the changes, among others, that seriously sets back Venezuela’s oil sovereignty.

• I can only say that the decision to not respond to the January 3 military attack seems to have been the right decision at the time, to prevent the total destruction of our Armed Forces and huge harm to the civilian population. But four months on, the Venezuelan state should be denouncing internationally the coercion to which it is being subjected.

• Second: the occupation, which is prohibited by United Nations resolutions that stipulate no country may plunder another’s resources. No government can claim the right to administer another country’s economic resources. No country can be coerced into making political, economic or legislative decisions under military threat.

• We must demand that the Venezuelan state be handed back control over its national income so that the state can address the serious problems caused by the political confrontation, the [US economic] blockade and sanctions, social unrest, violence, and so on, which have inflicted structural economic damage. This is the only way to resolve the most important issues facing the population: wages, education, health, public services. There can be no prosperity without a republic.

• My final point is that Venezuela must have the autonomy to formulate an independent foreign policy, which is a fundamental element of a sovereign state.

• Part of the situation facing the country is that the opposition parties are not really parties at all. They do not have a presence on the ground, in working-class sectors, and so on. Most opposition leaders are simply social media commentators who are heavily funded by the US and European countries.

• The main political activity of most opposition leaders, particularly over the past six years, has not been building parties or movements, but promoting military aggression, which they finally succeeded in bringing about on January 3.

• Indeed, the high level of political awareness among much of the population — both opposition and Chavista supporters — enabled them to understand the shift after 2018. They grasped that what had been a social struggle to transform the material conditions of people’s lives, with Chavismo’s successive victories leading to improvements and expansions of rights, had again become a classic conflict between power blocs, in which the vast majority gained nothing; on the contrary, they lost more every day.

• Fundamentally, the international left must understand that — beyond the government and whatever view one takes of it — Venezuela is a country that was militarily invaded, militarily occupied, and subjected to a policy of coercive tutelage. Therefore, the international left’s duty is to denounce this, regardless of whatever government is in power.

• I always remember that we were young left-wing activists at the time of the [1989] Panama invasion, and there were few people we sympathised less with than [Panamanian leader] Manuel Noriega. But this was not about Noriega; it was about a sister people being invaded and massacred, and we, Latin American left-wing youth, rose up for months, marching, protesting and so on, against that invasion.

29 more annotations...

• Either way, the men go in and the women want out.