Rep. Barbara Lee was named chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday, giving the Oakland Democrat a high-profile platform to push her priorities, from increasing funding for HIV/AIDS to pushing for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
At a news conference on Capitol Hill, the outgoing chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-Mich., handed over the wooden gavel and praised Lee as a "stalwart for human rights, global peace and social justice." Lee had considered challenging Kilpatrick for the job in 2006, but bowed out to avoid a divisive caucus fight.
"This is quite a moment for me," a jubilant Lee told reporters and fellow caucus members. "Now, we have an opportunity to really continue to lead and to really continue to be the conscience of the Congress."
As chairwoman during the 111th Congress that starts in January, Lee will take a lead role in pushing the agenda of the 43-member caucus - known by its acronym, CBC - which has historically been among the more powerful voting blocs in the House, with immense influence over legislation, appropriations and even presidential appointments.
Lee, who is stepping down as co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is known for her fierce anti-war stands and represents one of the House's most liberal districts, including Oakland, Berkeley, Castro Valley and other parts of the East Bay. She was the only member of Congress to vote against the authorization of the use of force after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which she criticized as a "blank check."
Lee, 62, dodged questions about her agenda, saying she wants to wait until caucus members gather in January to decide the group's priorities. She also downplayed speculation that the caucus will have more clout under President-elect Barack Obama, a CBC member during his tenure in the Senate.
Noting Obama's pledge to be president of "the whole country," she said CBC will be just one of many House caucuses that will seek to influence Obama.
"We'll work together to support his agenda," she said.
CBC members praised Obama at the news conference for signaling that he plans to nominate Eric Holder, a former judge and federal prosecutor, as the nation's first African American attorney general. Holder, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, earned Obama's trust overseeing his search for a vice presidential nominee earlier this year.
Lee is likely to have little trouble getting her calls to Obama returned. She was an early supporter of his presidential bid, even while other senior CBC members backed his primary rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Lee told reporters that she believes Obama remains committed to a rapid redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.
"I know he wants to end it," she said. "He was against it from day one. ... We have to see how he wants to do it."
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
|  |
| A supporter of the ruling Sandinista National Liberation Front party, FSLN, fires a homemade mortar against opposition supporters, not in picture, during a demonstration in Managua, Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008. Two police officers and three civilians were reported injured after clashes between supporters of the FSLN and opposition supporters over the Nov. 9 municipal elections. The sticker on the mortar reads in Spanish "FSLM, let's go for more victories." (AP Photo/Esteban Felix) |
MANAGUA, Nicaragua
Thousands of supporters of Nicaragua's leftist ruling party armed with rocks tried to block an opposition march on the capital to protest alleged vote fraud, setting off clashes that injured at least five people on Tuesday.
Two police officers and at least three protesters were injured by thrown rocks, national police spokeswoman Vilma Reyes said. Riot police came out in force, but some bloodied partisans still wrestled in the streets, throwing punches and tearing at ears.
Sandinista supporters blocked roads to Managua to cut off protests by the Constitutionalist Liberal Party over the outcome of Nov. 9 municipal elections. A similar clash took place Sunday.
An electoral tribunal dominated by President Daniel Ortega's Sandinista party declared his party the winner of most the races, including in the hotly contested Nicaraguan capital of Managua.
Opponents of the government said results were tampered with in Ortega's first major electoral test since reclaiming the presidency in 2006. The government says voting was fair.
Ortega has returned to power two decades after leading a Marxist government that fought U.S.-backed Contra rebels. He has since been a regular critic of U.S. foreign policy and built strong ties with Venezuela, Russia and Iran.
by Jay Michaelson
"Intentional sexuality" refers to the use of sexual practices to attain religious, spiritual or mystical experiences. It is a very broad term, embracing such divergent practices as the yoga of the Kama Sutra, ancient Mediterranean rites of Cybele (at least insofar as such rituals are reported in literary accounts), contemporary breathwork such as that taught in the Body Electric school (which I discuss below), and even the interpretations of marital union found in such texts as the Zohar, the masterpiece of the Kabbalah. In today's parlance, these practices are sometimes referred to as "sacred sexuality" or "erotic spirituality," because they seek to reclaim the link between sexuality and spirituality, an ancient bond severed by the anti-carnal elements within early Christianity, Protestantism, and American Puritanism in its old and newer forms.
From a scholarly perspective, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how fundamental this bond was and whether such a split was ever so radical as it appears. However, my project here is not somehow to conduct a vast intellectual archeology of sexuality in world religions, but rather to explore how intentional sexuality operates in contemplative practice today. Obviously, the mystery of sexuality was extremely important to most earth-based ("pagan") cultures and to primitive cultures around the world; artifacts from the lingam and the yoni to the pendulous breasts and large phalluses of African figurines indicate that our own culture's discomfort with sexuality from a religious perspective is a discrete cultural phenomenon, and far from universal. The use of intentional sexuality in Tantric practice is well known. Moreover, in the West, intentional sexuality figures prominently in the accounts of many Christian mystics, Kabbalists, Sufis, and many others; sexual metaphors are central in these Western mystical traditions, and sexual practices, of one form or another, are described in many of them.
Nor is intentional sexuality confined to esoteric traditions. For example, in ancient Judaism, the cherubs were angelic creatures who resided at the holiest place in the world: above the ark, in the Holy of Holies, in the Temple. According to rabbinic sources, they were in a permanent state of copulation - a later tradition emends that they were making love when the relationship between God and Israel was good, separated when it was bad. Moreover, the Talmud relates that the walls of the inner sanctum were decorated with images of sex. The cherubs' erotic union and separation an embodiment and metaphor for the Divine on earth, and, in their brazen sexuality, represent what some might deem ‘paganism' enshrined in the most sacred place of Judaism. (Indeed, the Talmud in Yoma 54b relates that when the first Temple was destroyed, the cherubs were paraded in the marketplace as evidence of Israel's paganism.) But say "cherubs" today, and you probably think of a fat, sexless baby.
Drawing on such traditions -- and, more frequently, on non-Western practices such as Tantra or suppressed religious practices such as those thought to be practiced by the ancient Canaanites and elsewhere in the Near East -- today's erotic contemplatives see themselves as rediscovering ancient pathways of sacred sexuality. Whether they are renewing old ways or discovering new ones is debatable, but that intentional sexuality now exists as a contemplative practice, widespread in the gay spiritual community and increasingly prevalent in heterosexual communities as well.
It is worth emphasizing that, as its advocates use the term, intentional sexuality (or sacred sexuality) is not a mere code word for orgies and sex-play. Of course, "free love" is sometimes found in spiritual or other intentional communities, particularly since the 1960s, but, as is well known, for long before that as well. However, as I use the term, and as I have experienced its practices today, intentional sexuality does not refer to "free love" per se; it refers to the use of sexuality as a contemplative, mystical, or ecstatic religious practice. It is, in part, a mindfulness practice, because it directs the attention to a particular focus: the erotic energy (however that term is defined or understood) in the body. And it is an ecstatic practice, because it generates so much erotic energy that altered mindstates are created. These mindstates may be conceptualized on a purely physiological level (as, for example, flooding the neurons in the brain) or in terms of the "soul," and the fruits of the practice may be understood as therapeutic, energetic or even prophetic. But the actual effect on the practitioner's mindstate is as undeniable as the effects of sustained meditation. Whatever else is going on in intentional sexuality, the change in mindstate is real.
Before considering the opportunities and perils of intentional sexuality, I will offer a brief description of the practice of "Taoist erotic massage," created by Joseph Kramer, Ph.D., a former Jesuit who now heads the New School of Erotic Touch. Kramer is the founder of the Body Electric School, which he left about ten years ago, and which is now a leading institution teaching intentional sexuality, to men and women, in the West. Essentially, Taoist erotic massage combines erotic massage techniques with breathwork in order to -- in its language -- generate erotic energy and spread it through the body. Like many other techniques, the practice is non-ejaculatory. In a metaphor often employed by Kramer, ordinary erotic massage (i.e., masturbation) is like blowing up a balloon so that it can pop and release tension. Taoist erotic massage (Kramer learned from several Taoist teachers, but the practice as it exists today is his own invention and is not Taoist in any historical sense), by contrast, generates the erotic energy, through sensual touch, but instead of releasing it, spreads it throughout the body. (Indeed, practitioners often report orgasm-like sensations in their arms and legs, or moving throughout the body.)
These massage practices are complemented by breathwork, on the part of the person receiving massage, which culminates in a sustained hold called the "Big Draw." The effects of the "Big Draw," as related by hundreds of other practitioners, can be profound. Some describe it as a "full body orgasm," which can last for several minutes. Others describe it in terms of ecstasy or Divine union. On the purely physical level, the perception of energy is acute, and, of course, the level of pleasure is quite intense. On the emotional plane, the intensity of the experience often acts as a cathartic, therapeutic release, opening doors much in the way of 'primal scream' and other such practices. Intellectually, the mind after the 'Big Draw' can be in a state of clarity quite similar to that of samadhi, the concentrated state of mind produced by some forms of meditation. And spiritually, many practitioners report mystical experiences, which I will describe here.
So, what are the opportunities, from a contemplative perspective, offered by intentional sexuality? And what are some of the dangers?
1. Mystical Experience. Great, open awareness can exist in the silence of ecstasy. Essentially, intentional sexuality is an ecstatic practice, a concentration, and an energetic practice -- all three of which lead to a quieting of the ordinary mind, with the attendant cognitive effects noted by mystics worldwide. It is an ecstatic practice not in the sense of the soul literally leaving the body, but in the broader sense of an excitement practice, which "turns up the volume" of sensory input (speaking loosely here) to flood the neurons of the brain. Like ecstatic dance or ecstatic vocal work, intentional sexuality drives out the ordinary faculties of discursive thought, creating a stillness akin to that experienced in samadhi meditative states; thus intentional sexuality becomes a concentration practice as well. Finally, intentional sexuality is an energetic practice because it leads to a direct perception of energetic phenomena -- again, speaking quite broadly, and not specifying in any way what "energy" might mean in this context -- throughout the body.
The result? With one's attention focused, and one's the life-energy flowing, one feels oneself so intimately immersed in the cosmic play (what the Vedas call lila) that many practitioners feel ourselves unified with it. Of course, it is possible to understand the unity of all things intellectually without doing any practice at all. But even if the mind knows unity, our hearts usually feel duality; they feel separation and yearning, and they feel joy at union. So, in ecstasy, we feel the truth with our bodies more than we could know it on a solely intellectual level. We gain true knowledge (in Hebrew, daat), which involves union not just between the "self" and the One but among the different parts of the soul as well: body, mind, heart, and spirit. This knowledge can take place because thoughts have been driven out of the body by ecstasy, and because the energies of the body are so activated that we become hyper-aware of the great love that radiates throughout Being.
Of course, different practitioners will have different experiences, and will also interpret their experiences according to their different conceptual matrices. What one person may experience as union, another may experience as contact with (but not union with) the Divine. Another may label the same experience merely a relaxation response, taking place purely within a materialistic, dualistic universe. But the phenomenal experience itself seems to be extremely widespread among those who practice intentional sexuality in a serious way.
2. Realization. In addition to an experience of union with the world as manifestation, sexuality also is a portal to awareness itself, to the great Emptiness that lies beneath and conditions all that is. The sense of interdependence one gains in sexual practice is quite intense. In a different context, I wrote of the experience in this way: "By knowing ourselves to be a mere pattern of the great flux of Being, we know that everything else is empty of separate substance also. We can directly perceive, with the right intention, that this moment, that this occasion of you reading these words, is but a dream in the mind of God." The mindstate which birthed this sense of realization was conditioned by the heightened awareness that was itself conditioned by intentional sexual practice. More than any drug, but like an entheogen in its seemingly involuntary nature (i.e., one feels oneself brought into a state, rather than cultivating a state) intentional sexuality excites the body and allows the conceptual mind to relax. It is not, by any means, the only way to attain such consciousness, but it is a powerful one.
3. Healing. In many Western religious systems, sexuality in particular and the body in general are often seen as sites of sin or impurity. "What the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit," Paul wrote in Galatians 5:16. "If by the Spirit you put to death the needs of the body, you will live." (Romans 8:13) Amplified by American Puritan attitudes regarding sexuality and the material world, these kinds of ideas have led many to conceive a split between the spiritual and the sexual, the sacred and the erotic. Given that we all possess sexual desire, the demonization of that desire naturally leads to a sense of pain, or of alienation from oneself. This is true for many people, but even more so for members of sexual minorities (lesbians, gay men, etc.), whose sexuality has been especially demonized by religion.
Experiencing the body as holy can bring great emotional healing. Even if one never has a mystical or realization experience during the practice sacred sexuality, just knowing that the body is a temple instead of a latrine is a precious liberation. Many men in Body Electric, for example, have reported life-changing experiences of repressed emotional pain regarding their bodies, or of unresolved psychological trauma (especially, in gay male contexts, with respect to the father/father figure). The Body Electric practice has thus evolved to include what is sometimes termed "heart-work"; prior to the massage sessions, many hours are devoted to community-building and trust-building, and the "bonding" that takes place in these periods is, for many men, as significant as the practice of intentional sexuality itself. However, the level of sensory stimulation derived from intentional sexuality is so intense, and so grounded in the body, that even without such additional heart-work, the experience itself can often bring about catharsis, ecstasy, healing, and transformation.
Think of the fear, the taboos, the shame, and the insecurities that so many of us carry around when we think about our bodies and our sexuality. Even the most well-adjusted of women is still subjected to societal messaging, every day, about how her body should look. Even the most secure of men still lives in a culture with taboos around nudity, or talking about sexuality. And for those of us who have been wounded -- by trauma, by homophobia, by sexism, or by any number of other factors -- erotic healing is especially powerful. It can mend body, mind, heart, and spirit. And it can address the wound that many carry regarding their sexuality by utilizing precisely the site of woundedness as a site for transcendence.
Finally, healing does not mean a narcissistic licking of one's own wounds and finding palliatives to ease whatever pain we feel. Healing means being more able to exist in the present moment, healthily, in an integrated way -- and in a way that brings about more compassion. It is difficult for me to describe my own experience of compassion arising naturally from wisdom; it simply seems to occur. I remember riding on the subway after a weekend of Body Electric practice, being so vitally aware of the energies within everyone on the train, and so saddened by the way they are thwarted, repressed, twisted, and destroyed. This was true not only for those victimized by Western taboos and fears, but by those truly victimized by economic injustice, illness, and the myriad other causes of pain in the world. Like the compassion that arises in meditation, this compassion did not manifest as a vague "feeling sorry for the world"; it inspired me to change my own behavior, to act in a more gentle way, and to open myself more to the suffering of those around me (and myself). This, I think, is what true healing brings about: engagement, integration, skillful behavior.
4. Play. In case it hasn't been clear by now, intentional sexuality is hot. It's fun, it's erotic, it's a remarkable form of play. It's okay that it's hot. It's great that it's hot; it's Divine that it's hot. For pagans and polytheists, this play is holy and invoking the energies of nature is holy. But even for monotheists and monists, if the manifest universe is an expression of the Divine, playing with Itself, coming to know Itself, loving Itself, then the more we immerse ourselves in that cosmic drama, the more we ourselves are expressing God (or the Goddess, or the One). Becoming fully, electrically alive; growing exquisitely sensitive to eros - this is becoming and becoming aware of God Itself.
There are more benefits to intentional sexuality on the individual and community levels, and one of the interesting facts about it is that different practitioners can be on totally different individual ‘trips,' unified with their co-practitioners more by acts than by intentions. However, because my assumption is that many Reality Sandwich readers have experience with intentional and sacred sexuality, I want to turn now to some of the perils I and others have encountered, which, interestingly, tend to flow directly from the benefits. This next part is a bit insider-y -- but that's what we're here for, right?
1. Idolatry: Mistaking manifestation for essence
A persistent risk with spirituality is that there is no one mind-state that is closer to God than any other. Wherever we are - in ecstasy, sadness, satisfaction, or yearning - if God fills the universe, or if "All is One," then we are fully Divine at that moment. Yet many spiritual practices lead us to believe that ecstasy is enlightenment, or at least a prerequisite for it. There appears to be a goal, and a path to travel from where we are now (which is deficient in some way) to somewhere else (which will be better). At least two errors flow from this view of spiritual practice: first, that the feeling of ecstasy is itself the Divine - rather than one manifestation of It - and second, that other feelings are not quite as filled with God as is joy.
These errors are especially present in sacred sexuality. First, it is very tempting to label the ecstasy, the orgasm, the love as the Ultimate. From a polytheistic point of view, this presents no real problem; the energy of excitement may be experienced as a god. From a monotheistic or monistic point of view, however, it can lead to a mistake: that this is it, we feel, as our bodies take us to altered states of consciousness. But "this is it" is both right and wrong. This is it - the moment we are experiencing is nothing but the One Unfolding Now. And as ecstatic practice drives thought from the mind, we are especially open to be present. But what is "It" about this present moment is not that the body-mind happens to feel so turned on, or that the ch'i is flowing in an excited way. All the energy is no more Divine than boredom, delight, or sadness. And it is not, in any separate sense, real; like all forms, erotic energy is ultimately empty of separate reality.
The notion that a god or goddess is invoked, or summoned, by a given ritual practice has a very long lineage. And, for those who have practiced intentional sexuality, it is easy to see why. The energy shift is so dramatic, one cannot help but notice it, and it seems so other to the usual mode of being, one cannot help but label it as a kind of possession. Even if the sages of monotheism were not as prudish as they are sometimes made out to be, it is easy to see why they would disapprove of such practices.
Even apart from ideology, intentional sexuality can also lead to a kind of contemplative mistake. Spiritual practice enlivens the present, and elevates it to the sacred. But with the delicious, addictive sensations of intentional sexuality (more on the attachment to these feelings below), a very different sense can result. Instead of the practice causing us to appreciate every moment, it can cause us to flee the present in search of more ecstasy. After all, ecstasy is when we are closest to the Divine, and who doesn't want that? To speak by way of analogy, intentional sexuality can make Sunday very special and the rest of the week rather dull.
Classically, this is one of the central problems of idolatry: not the idol so much as the stone which is discarded; the mistake that we can so easily make that "this" is more holy than "that."
2. Confusion: Mistaking the ego for Reality
Another "error" of idolatry, replicated in intentional sexuality, is the easy mistake of supposing that the Power belongs to the self. Here, language can be tricky. If by "Self," one means the True Self, the One that underlies all individuality, then the Power does indeed belong to that Self, because that Self is The One That Is. However, the error comes in when I imagine the power to belong to Jay, an individual with a history. I remember one time, practicing intentional sexuality atop a mountain, I stood in the wind, surveying the desert beneath me, and felt like a god-as if I, in particular, possessed this Power. Really, the Power possesses me -- but it didn't quite feel that way.
This ego danger is omnipresent in intentional sexuality practiced in sexual minority communities. Contemplative practice involves dropping our individual "story," and dropping into the "Now." Therapy, on the other hand, is all about going into the story. Intentional sexuality is a mix of both. When gay men, for example, gather for Body Electric, we mix healing with ecstasy with contemplation. In so doing, we are mixing modalities in a delicate way - at once too noisy for silence and too quiet for therapy. Intentional sexuality can bring up many important heart-teachings -- about the ego, sexual health, emotional wholeness, and so on. Obviously, all of these things are very good! But engaging with the self way makes it all the more tempting to ascribe the powers of the body to the self.
To repeat, none of this is to denigrate the critical work of healing the self. In the world of form, our identities matter. Owning our histories is part of fulfilling our individual soul-prints, and is essential for well-rounded growth. All of us can name spiritual teachers who are very advanced in spiritual practice but still have a lot of work they need to do on their emotional or psychological well-being. This comes from neglecting the fact that, even if we are really all God, those of us who exist in the social world do so in selves which often need a lot of work and love.
So, it's not dissolving in emptiness is good, but exploring form is bad. The problem lies in confusing one with the other. At the fruition of the contemplative path, being a survivor of abuse, or queer, or a woman, means nothing. At other points along the path, it can mean everything. Intentional sexuality, which traverses the whole length of the path, can thus be very confusing. It's not clear when to go into the story, go into the wound, explore the shadow - and when to drop all of that and bask in timelessness. It's great that one practice can take you to all these places; it's just tricky knowing where you are and where you're going.
3. Attachment
I admit, I like meditating. It relaxes me, and I've gotten good enough at it that it is simply enjoyable. But, then again, it's not as enjoyable as a ten minute orgasm. This is one of the delights of intentional sexuality, of course, but also one of the dangers. I found, when I practiced too much, that I started to crave it. I became very attached to certain feelings in the body, and my mind grew restless when it wasn't experiencing them. It was very easy to see intentional sexuality as becoming yet another addictive behavior, and we all know, or have heard of, sex addicts for whom the opiate of orgasm has become an intoxicant. How does one ensure that one's own ‘sacred' sexuality does not function in the same way? And how not to attach to the sacred sexuality path at the expense of other practices which are so critical for balance and quiet?
There are answers to these questions, and skilled teachers who answer them. But, like any serious contemplative practice, the teacher is essential and the auto-didact is to be warned.
Moreover, since intentional sexuality often involves a partner, and since there are often multiple partners available, we often want some kinds of bodies but not others, or desire a form of pleasure not necessarily about healing, mysticism, or transcendence. I've experienced attachments in meditation, too-literally, and strongly, wanting a certain color cushion. But when the sex drive is in play, the attachment is far stronger and potentially more destructive.
4. Boundary questions
Connected to the perils of attachment is the critical need for boundaries in intentional sexuality. Mystical practice, one sometimes hears, is anathema to the boundaries of both religion and society. No limits, no walls, no rules; mystics (especially queer mystics) are the in-between people, the boundary-crossers. By defying conventional definitions, we show that these definitions (like everything else) are empty. The last thing we ought to do is import boundaries and limits into our spiritual-sexual lives.
But all creatures draw boundaries, even ants, fish, and doves. Humans designate, through sometimes arbitrary line-drawing, those objects and times which are valuable. For almost the entire world, the important bit of wisdom is that these lines are, in fact, arbitrary; that values are socially constructed; that every boundary can be crossed. But precisely for the sacred boundary-crossers, there is an equally-important reminder: that these arbitrary boundaries have function.
In intentional sexuality, it is essential to draw boundaries around the holy-I'd rather use the Hebrew word kadosh, which means both separate (from the ordinary) and intimate (with the One), especially because it is used, disapprovingly, to refer to hierodules (k'deshim) and other practitioners of intentional sexuality. The drawing of boundaries allows us to say, literally and figuratively, "we're not just fucking around." When I tell some people that I am involved in sacred sexuality, their assumption is that the sacred part is merely a pretext to get laid.
And sometimes, it is true. At one gathering I attended, there were occasions on which some participants were clearly more interested in fondling the hot guy than in unifying sexuality and spirituality. Of course, hot bodies are hot, and that should not be denied; it's fun to play sexually with people we find attractive. But clearly there is a difference between (a) opening up, through sexual intimacy, to the play of energies in the Divine manifestation and to the great Loving Emptiness that underlies all and (b) getting off because you're fondling the hot guy. To be doing the latter practice, in my opinion, validates the skeptics and does a grave disservice and disrespect to God and God's holy lovers.
And it is an inflation of the ego. The path of sacred sexuality is a path of self-fulfillment and self-annihilation. When I practice it, I fulfill my Divine mission, activate as many energies within my particular body and soul as I can, and I am fully "me" in that moment. And yet, precisely through that self-fulfillment, I cease to be the separate "me" at all. Separation disappears; "I am That." But when I'm fondling the hot guy, I am a separate ego that's getting some substitute-love by associating itself with a desired object. I am fulfilling "my" needs or wants. In contrast to becoming fully whole and thus fully empty, I am trying to balm my various wounds with a drug-like medication: the hot guy. It is not service of God; it is the service of the separate self, and eventually it will lead to suffering. This danger exists, and its negative energy can poison erotic rituals, and I've seen it happen. Boundaries and intentions help keep us on track, which is why, in Body Electric and similar contexts, it is not thought of as repressive or "bad" to set them. On the contrary, most teachers of intentional sexuality embrace boundaries as necessary to create the safe space for sacred union to happen. In so doing, they are replicating the ancient forms of the k'deshim themselves, who worked in temples, not brothels or bars.
5. Energy Dissipation
The last of the five intentional sexuality hindrances I wish to discuss is a kind of dissipation of energy which I experienced over the course of practice, and of which I have heard many much more experienced practitioners complain. Most sacred sexuality practices do not involve ejaculation, and are said to enliven the body, not deplete it. However, I have found that even without ejaculation, there is a sort of erotic fatigue that can set in. Perhaps, like bodybuilders, or yogis who can sit, unmoving, for days at a time, experienced practitioners build up their bodies' stamina and do not experience this sort of fatigue. But beginners can feel like Bilbo Baggins after he wears the Ring too long: like butter spread too thinly over too much bread. Like the Ring, intentional sexual practices can give power. But do we know enough about how they take power from us as well?
Once again, it is not that these questions are unanswerable, or even novel. They are omnipresent in spiritual practice. Every contemplative practice carries dangers with it; the fact that they exist is no reason not to engage in the practice. They just remind us that we are playing with serious energy that requires serious intention and attention. Whether we mythologize this energy in terms of angels, or ghosts, or even gods, or whether we regard it as purely physiological in nature, we must approach the quest as a shaman would, mindful of the dangers that await.
I am still working out how to integrate my sexual practice into my contemplative work. There have been times, recently, when I have felt its opiate-like pull, and so I've found it very important to be out in nature, alone, but not "go there" sexually all the time. I'm still working out, in my own Jewish-Buddhist context, whether there are practices or ideas that are in too much tension with my core principles, or whether the framing of the question in this way is itself an invitation to consider my own lurking spiritual materialism.
Most importantly, I am mindful of something that one of my teachers once said, when I asked him about working with eros along the contemplative path. Grounded in the Buddhist tradition, his sharp response gave me much to contemplate. It's what I wrestle with most, these days, as I explore this particular path. "Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with it," he told me. "But the energy of eros is so strong, it's hard not to think it's real."
An earlier version of this essay appeared in White Crane: Gay Wisdom and Culture (www.whitecranejournal.com)
According to UN figures, Latin America has the highest concentration of wealth of any region in the world, as well as debilitating poverty levels. While many suffer under these conditions, the indigenous populations of Latin America almost always are among those living the most immiserated lives. During the 1960s and 70s, although there was impressive economic growth in many countries throughout the region, the indigenous seldom benefited from such prospects. Whatever small gains were achieved during those decades were dashed for them when an economic crisis enveloped the hemisphere during the 1980s. The economic ramifications of the crisis led to the widespread implementation of what is referred to today as neoliberal economic policies, which were anything but kind to the average Latin American. Mexico was the first country to be “rescued” under the harsh terms of neoliberalism, which are still being resisted to this day. The defiance of the Zapatistas in the impoverished state of Chiapas, and their subsequent emergence on the world stage, is part of a historical struggle against cultural homogenization and for the ability to live a life consisting of more than mere survival.
Mexico’s Financial Crisis and the Washington Consensus
Like many other countries in Latin America, Mexico ran into extreme economic difficulties in the early 1980s and dealt with these by radically reorganizing its economy through a process of economic liberalization. The causes of the hemispheric economic crisis were numerous, including the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks, a general switch from long-term fixed interest rate loans to short-term variable interest rate commercial loans, financial deregulation and a dramatic drop in commodity prices. The result for many Mexicans was economic disaster. Although the region as a whole experienced massive capital flight and rapid increases in debt, Mexico’s economy was the first to be completely overwhelmed. The economic situation there became extremely worrisome for the institutions and countries to which Mexico was indebted; it was feared that if Mexico was allowed to default on its debt, other Latin American countries might follow its lead. This spurred Washington, the IMF, and international commercial banks to establish a “rescue package” for Mexico conditioned on implementing neoliberal reforms which emphasized fiscal discipline, redirected and reduced public spending, ordered the elimination of barriers to trade and the deregulation of the business environment, and instructed the creation of incentives to attract foreign investment and move expeditiously to privatize state enterprises. Profitable to some, these free market policies immediately began to have a devastating effect on the lives of many Mexicans, particularly to the indigenous population; as the reforms were broadened in scope, Mexico’s economy continued to plummet when it came to adversely affecting the poor and marginalized.
Under the presidency of Miguel de la Madrid (1982-1988), Mexico continued to liberalize its economy despite nationalist criticism that, among other things, this would destroy the country’s industrial base while principally benefiting foreign producers. Surprisingly, as Professors Skidmore and Smith have noted, unlike many other Latin American countries implementing neoliberal economic policies, “Mexico did not resort to pervasive, large-scale authoritarian repression” in order to maintain stability. However, this was not because the reforms were not painful for Mexicans; it was because of the country’s unique political reality that was completely dominated by one party, the Partido Revolucionario Institutional (PRI). This situation was also complemented by “key attributes of the Mexican political system,” such as “its restricted competition, its control of working-class movements, it autonomy from private interests, and its tactical flexibility.” Therefore, liberalization was able to proceed relatively smoothly for the first decade, without the egregious levels of violence which accompanied the process in other Latin American countries.
In 1990, President Salinas took his most dramatic step for the country regarding the neoliberal restructuring process, announcing an ambitious plan to initiate a free trade agreement with the United States. The plan was extended to include Canada in 1992. Despite popular movements in opposition to the regional trade initiative in all three countries, negotiations moved forward. In Mexico, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold to its citizens as an opportunity to attract foreign direct investment, ameliorate social problems, build credibility as a democratic state, and to lock in and institutionalize the process of economic growth and liberalization for Mexico. In 1994, NAFTA came into effect, and along with it came the Zapatista insurrection.
Impetus for the Zapatistas
The Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas represented the rejection of a developmental trajectory dominated by an economic perspective that worships the free market, but more importantly, is a part of a historic struggle for land rights, human rights, political autonomy, cultural recognition, and the right to a decent life, for which indigenous people throughout Latin America and across the globe have striven for, but for centuries rarely achieved. The state of Chiapas is the poorest in the country, with poverty rates at a staggering 75.7% in 2005, according to The National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy. Indignation resulting from such mournful statistics played no small role in the approaching insurrection. As the Zapatista National Liberation Army Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle stated in 1993, just prior to its revolt,
“we have nothing to lose, absolutely nothing, no decent roof over our heads, no land, no work, poor health, no food, no education, no right to freely and democratically choose our leaders, no independence from foreign interests, and no justice for ourselves or our children. But we say enough is enough! We are the descendants of those who truly built this nation, we are the millions of dispossessed, and we call upon all of our brethren to join our crusade, the only option to avoid dying of starvation!”
Although social and economic tensions between the wealthy landowners of the region and the normally impoverished indigenous people of Chiapas had long existed, the armed uprising began on January 1, 1994, and purposefully coincided with NAFTA’s debut. The Zapatistas took up arms to culturally distinguish themselves within Mexico and to draw attention to their opposition to the government’s discrimination, neglect, and indifference to their salvation.
These rebels sought a greater degree of political autonomy; to acquire guaranteed access to full justice; to be able to obtain a better standard of living through increased employment opportunities; the ability to exercise control over the education of their children; and finally, the right to defend themselves against the foreign economic homicide that could result from being impaled by NAFTA.
As Cultural Survival Quarterly has pointed out, although the Zapatista rebellion has at least partially “opened the door for indigenous Mexicans to reach the national agenda,” it is not only a struggle against the “ethnocentric, mono-cultural, homogenizing state apparatus,” but it is also a defiant stand against the economic pressure of the United States and the worldwide trend of bowing to the masters of economic liberalization. The most direct effect of NAFTA on the people of Chiapas has been lower market prices for their main local cash crops, coffee and maize; however, the revision of Article 27 of the constitution allowing the privatization of ejido communal land reserved for the indigenous as a sacred trust was also a devastating blow to the traditional indigenous livelihood. This was done so that from that point forward and through a variety of means, land reserved for the indigenous would begin to be lawfully transferred into the hands of private business interests, permanently separating the indigenous from their land. While to some observers this might appear to be an insignificant side effect of trade liberalization, when one realizes that the people of the region were already struggling in a supreme manner to just survive on a daily basis and deriving much of their nutrition from the availability of maize, it becomes clear this constitutional change was far from a negligible matter.
According to a study conducted by the Washington D.C.-based International Relations Center (IRC), between 1999 and 2004, Mexican farmers saw the price of maize fall by half due to an influx of subsidized U.S. agricultural imports. Concomitantly, a North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) report points out that the cost of tortillas increased from 1.9 to 5.5 pesos per kilo between 1998 and 2003. As if these trends were not taking a sufficient toll on the Mexican way of life, the concentration of tortilla production in the hands of large industry also has increased, contributing substantially to the fraying of the country’s cultural fabric that has formed around the cultivation of maize.
Monetary Roots of Government Repression
The Zapatista movement, otherwise formally known as the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), has faced unyielding resistance from the Mexican government. The reasons for this are multifaceted, but the fact that the Chiapas region contains a huge amount of natural resources is of unquestionable significance. With 30% of the country’s surface water, this state has proven attractive to hydroelectric developments and is home to the Manuel Moreno Torres facility, the largest plant of its type in the country. In 2005, according to International Energy Annual (IEA), hydroelectricity was responsible for 13% of the country’s electrical generation, with the majority of that being generated by Chiapas’ Grijalva River.
Among the state’s other natural resources are petroleum and natural gas. According to the national petroleum company PEMEX, the country’s southeastern basins, which include the Chiapas-Tabasco-Comalcalco oil producing area, have been among the country’s most important producers since the 1970s. Not only have they been an important source of oil during the last few decades, but they will also continue to play an important role in Mexico’s energy future. In a Prospective Resources report published in January 2008, PEMEX clearly states that, “in the short and medium term, the exploratory activities will be mostly focused on the Southeastern Basins, where oil production is expected to continue.”
Natural gas, which the EIA estimated made up 27% of Mexico’s total energy consumption in 2005, is another resource of critical importance and as the U.S. Department of Energy points out, “most of Mexico’s natural gas is produced in the southeastern part of the country… primarily in the southern Chiapas and Tabasco regions.” Moreover, since “natural gas demand is climbing rapidly in Mexico” there will surely be increased pressure to secure unhampered access to the region. While it is true that the EZLN is not currently preventing the exploitation of all of Chiapas’ natural resources, the region’s strategic importance to the country not only exacerbates the level of conflict between the EZLN and a government fearful of a secessionist movement, it also puts the indigenous rebels of the region in direct confrontation with numerous outside business interests who would prefer not to have to worry about the fate of their present or future investments. This could help explain the government’s resistance to the area’s push for greater autonomy, while also demonstrating that international economic forces are formidable enough to persuade a government to harass, disenfranchise, and even massacre a troublesome segment of its population, if need be, as it proved to be capable of doing at Acteal.
It seems apparent that “there is opposition to a process of redistribution of power that would permit their reconstitution as peoples-their social and political re-articulation, consolidation and revitalization, which would even contest the big business expansion into the natural resources in indigenous regions.” With these incentives for the government to react harshly and swiftly against the EZLN, it is all the more remarkable that the movement continues to exist.
The Role of Global Civil Society
Interestingly, part of the reason that the EZLN movement has been able to perpetuate its existence, despite such a determined effort to crush it, is due to the support the movement has managed to garner from a globalized civil society. Technologies such as the internet and video cameras have made it possible for the EZLN to generate worldwide sympathy and support for its struggles against free trade and for political autonomy. The EZLN was able to mobilize assistance to assemble a group of “highly educated indigenous intellectuals,” who helped to create “hundreds of local and regional grassroots organizations with authentic leadership, and the accumulated wisdom of indigenous struggles throughout Latin America. ” This support has been crucial for the movement, not only to help its plight gain prominence internationally, but also in terms of providing for its physical security. Indeed, as John Ross, author of Zapatista! noted, “if civil society had not risen to their defense and filled Mexico City’s great Zocalo Plaza with 100,000 supporters to force then-President Carlos Salinas to call off the Mexican military and declare a cease fire, the EZLN might never have survived its first month as a public entity.”
False Hope under Zedillo and Fox
While the government’s overall response to the Zapatista movement has generally been repressive in nature, there was a brief period where it looked as if constructive steps forward would be taken. The prospect for progress was encapsulated within the San Andreas Accords on Indian Rights and Culture signed in 1996. If these accords had been implemented, they would have granted autonomy, addressed recognition of the country’s indigenous, returned indigenous lands to communal stewardship, and demilitarized the otherwise rebellious region. The negotiations were considered a landmark for the indigenous struggles within Latin America. Unfortunately, President Ernesto Zedillo vetoed the agreement on the pretext that it would allow Mexico’s indigenous to consider succession from the nation. Since then, attempting to make these accords work has been a primary goal of the EZLN. However, pursuing this goal has not kept them from democratically electing “good government councils” in popular assemblies and constructing autonomous schools and health clinics.
With the election of President Vincente Fox, it appeared there might be hope for progress in the stalled negotiations. After all, Fox claimed during his election campaign that if he won he would solve the Zapatista problem in fifteen minutes. Unfortunately, when he received the opportunity to demonstrate the validity of his claim, he ultimately failed. In the end, what resulted under his administration with regard to the EZLN was twofold. On one hand, in response to the growing opposition to neoliberalism’s affects in Mexico, Fox began “armoring NAFTA,” in the words of then-U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas Shannon. Although officially this was done to protect the “economic space” from “the threat of terrorism and against a threat of natural disasters and environmental and ecological disasters,” it was obvious that much of this was merely equivocal rhetoric to encourage the steps being taken to protect NAFTA from threats other than those just listed. As Laura Carlson of the Center for International Policy pointed out, it is well known that, “the counter-terrorism/drug-war model elaborated in the Security and Prosperity Partnership and embodied later in Plan Mexico (known officially as the Merida Initiative) encourages a crackdown on grassroots dissent to assure that no force, domestic or foreign, effectively questions the future of the system.”
As this “securitization” of economic policy proceeded, Fox also decided to temporarily de-escalate the situation in Chiapas by ordering the removal of troops from territory held by the EZLN as well as the surrounding areas. Although the sum of these policy initiatives represented a failure on behalf of the EZLN to achieve their aims through negotiation and a deepening of the types of economic policies that fueled their uprising in the first place, the subsequent period of relative peace at least contributed to the functioning of a de facto EZLN government, which is now estimated to extend throughout roughly 15% of the state. By the time Fox left office, it was clear the Zapatista problem was not going to be solved anytime soon, much less in 15 minutes.
Felipe Calderón and the Question of the Zapatistas
Since the questionable election of neoliberal enthusiast Felipe Calderón, the situation of the EZLN has taken a turn for the worse. Although Vincente Fox shared Calderón’s basic economic perspective, Calderón narrowly prevailed in a very contentious race for the presidency against Lopez Obrador, in which the latter as well as most of his supporters were vehemently opposed to the continuation of neoliberal economic policies in Mexico. As Lopez Obrador announced, “We are going to revamp the economic model, because neoliberalism isn’t working.” Calderón’s suspect squeaker victory left him with a weak mandate and a polarized country. In response to this lack of overwhelming popular support and the gradual increase of resistance against the government’s economic policies, especially prevalent in poor and indigenous regions, he has relied heavily upon the military—which has now begun to be subsidized by the U.S.—to maintain a “mano dura” or “iron fist” throughout the country.
The manifestation of this approach is particularly acute in Chiapas, where the government has complemented its “mano dura” approach with a divide and conquer strategy aimed at undermining the EZLN. With regard to the use of such tactics, Calderón is building upon what previous administrations already had begun; an attempt to create and train anti-Zapatista paramilitaries within the state by establishing various programs that can be tapped to yield land grants that often are in EZLN-occupied zones. These questionable land titles that Calderón has been handing out end up in the hands of anti-Zapatista families and organizations, which, according to plan, are commonly indigenous themselves, such as the Organization for the Defense of Indigenous and Peasant People’s (OPDDIC). Frequently, these families and organizations that they often are a part of have ties to the government and/or paramilitary groups. These land titles then eventually provide the pretext for using force to oust those who support the Zapatistas from those newly titled areas just handed out by Calderón. As Ernesto Ladesma, head of the Center of Policy Analysis and Social and Economic Investigations (CAPISE) said regarding the rise of paramilitary violence in connection with land evictions in early 2008, “The situation in Chiapas is serious and violence is on the rise. The public should know this.”
The other component of Calderón’s strategy—increased militarization of the region—has been documented by the Chiapas-based CAPISE, which has reported, “on the fifty-six permanent military bases that the Mexican state runs on indigenous land in Chiapas, there has been a marked increase in activity. Weapons and equipment are being dramatically upgraded, new battalions are moving in, including Special Forces—all signs of escalation.” It seems plausible that if enough violence erupts between the EZLN (which has refrained from retaliation as of now) and the paramilitaries, which could be conveniently framed as indigenous people slaughtering one another, the military may have just the excuse it needs to launch the next stage of its offensive against the defiant EZLN. While it’s true that the mayor of Chiapas hails from the left-leaning Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD), it’s unclear whether this anti-neoliberal sentiment would translate into support, considering how many were angered by the EZLN’s refusal to endorse PRD candidate Lopez Obrador in his presidential race.
In the U.S. it is doubtful whether Barack Obama’s election automatically will usher in a new era of U.S.-Mexican relations that would relieve the underlying causes of the EZLN’s current plight. Despite the fact that Obama has consistently criticized President Bush’s neoliberal economic policies for having a ruinous effect on the U.S. economy, he has not yet said or done anything that would allude to a readiness to extend this attitude to the Calderón administration, in order to get it to reverse the progress it has made in liberalizing the Mexican economy. As the Latin News phrased it, Obama has “laid the basis for a close working relationship with the Mexican president,” as opposed to a potentially confrontational or tough one, stoked by such irritants as drugs, immigration and possible unwanted revisions of NAFTA (from Washington’s perspective). While Obama has claimed “our diplomacy with Mexico must aim to amend NAFTA,” what he may desire to alter is environmental and labor standards included in the deal, “which he believes have done little to curb NAFTA’s failures.” In sum, although great change should not be anticipated, under Obama Washington will be more likely to pressure Calderón to halt any prospective bloody military confrontation with the EZLN, if indeed one should erupt, and the new U.S. leader at least recognizes the need to focus on “enhance[ing] the professionalism of [Mexico’s] law enforcement.” Mexico would be well advised to prepare itself to work with another Lula, which Obama may well become, with short spurts to the left, shifting to center-right initiatives when it comes to dealing with the economy. While it is likely that Obama will work to improve labor and environmental standards, it is not in the cards that the new U.S. leader will, at this time, risk substantially roiling the diplomatic waters by assisting the EZLN’s efforts at self-rule.
As 2009 approaches, Calderon’s policies appear to be sedulously aimed at undermining what modest success the EZLN has had thus far. However, due to the attention the EZLN was able to muster during its armed uprising—albeit at great cost—it appears that he will not be able to utilize raw force against the EZLN, without unacceptable political cost, unless his strategy of co-opting indigenous peasants and armed proxies in Chiapas is able to create favorable circumstances for such military action. Unfortunately for the EZLN, Obama’s election doesn’t seem to justify much hope. The White House is not about to undergo an ideological shift of sufficient magnitude to fundamentally affect the root cause of the Zapatistas’ suffering; Mexico’s neoliberal economic policies. Yet, the present Chiapas scenario could play out in a variety of ways; hopefully the iconic Subcomandante Marcos was being overly pessimistic when he stated in late 2007 that, “The signs of war on the horizon are clear. War, like fear, also has a smell. And now we are starting to breathe its fetid odor in our lands.”
Looking Forward
Although hundreds of EZLN members have died over the years in this conflict over culture, livelihood, natural resources, participatory democracy, and ‘soft power,’ it could be argued that the movement has met with rather significant success. During the initial stages of its uprising, the EZLN managed to acquire large tracts of land and has been able to retain control of them. These areas are now being governed according to the principles of participatory democracy, close to the way in which the local indigenous community traditionally lived. Most importantly, they are living nearer to the way in which they desire to live. Their struggle has raised awareness about inequality, the devastating effects of NAFTA, and the desire of many in Mexico to have more of a say in decisions that affect their daily lives. Unfortunately for the EZLN, modern ‘globalized’ and ‘liberalized’ economies such as Mexico’s do not question their policies unless forced to. There are deals at stake and profits to be made; central to these concerns are Chiapas and the EZLN. In other words, if measures are not taken by the EZLN to denature prospects of conflict, it appears that squaring off with Calderón’s “mano dura” could mean the EZLN is likely to face a renewal of violence with the Mexican authorities before his term ends in 2012. While the path to peace and autonomy is far from clear, it seems as if defensive preparedness, avoidance of conflict with the paramilitaries and a focused attempt to expose their ties with the government, as well as renewed efforts to preemptively draw the attention of the international community to events in Chiapas, would represent a logical starting point. Whatever decisions the EZLN makes, such efforts will likely require unflinching courage and dedication to the Zapatista cause, as its members will be confronting an opponent that would very much like to make an example out of their resistance to neoliberalism, and which is likely to have the backing of powerful domestic and international political-economic interests.
This analysis was prepared by Research Associate Orion Cruz
Bolivian President Evo Morales joins us in the firehouse studio to discuss the election of Barack Obama, US-Bolivian relations, the global economic crisis and more. Morales is visiting the United States at a time when relations between the two countries are deteriorating. Last month, the Bush administration suspended long-term trade benefits with Bolivia over its alleged failure to cooperate in the “war on drugs.” Meanwhile, Morales has given the Drug Enforcement Administration three months to leave Bolivia. He accused DEA agents of violating Bolivian sovereignty and encouraging the drug trade.JUAN GONZALEZ: Today, a Democracy Now! special. We spend the hour with Bolivian President Evo Morales. He is here in New York for meetings at the United Nations and the Organization of American States.
President Morales told reporters Monday that he hoped to see improved diplomatic and trade relations with the United States under President-elect Obama. Bolivia’s first indigenous president noted the significance of the first African American being elected to the White House and said they “had a lot of things in common if we are talking about change.”
Relations between the United States and Bolivia have deteriorated in recent months. Last month, the Bush administration suspended long-term trade benefits with Bolivia over its alleged failure to cooperate in the “war on drugs.”
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The Andean Trade Preference Act allows us to suspend trade preferences with countries that do not live up to their promises. And unfortunately, Bolivia has failed to cooperate with the United States on important efforts to fight drug trafficking. So, sadly, I have proposed to suspend Bolivia’s trade preferences until it fulfills its obligations.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Meanwhile, Morales spoke out about this earlier this month and gave the Drug Enforcement Administration three months to leave Bolivia. He accused DEA agents of violating Bolivian sovereignty and encouraging the drug trade.
This Monday, President Morales told reporters at the United Nations he would never permit the US anti-drug agency back into his country. He said he would launch a new intelligence operation to stop trafficking, as well as campaign to remove the coca leaf from the UN list of prohibited drugs. Bolivia is the third largest producer of coca, after Colombia and Peru. The United States is the world’s largest cocaine consumer.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now here in our firehouse studio by the Bolivian president, Evo Morales. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Thank you very much.
AMY GOODMAN: First, you come here after the election of the first African American president of the United States. You are the first indigenous leader of Bolivia. What is your message to President-elect Obama?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, I thank you for the interview. I feel that the world goes round and round. Three or four years ago, it would be impossible to think that a peasant president would be there. Nevertheless, the awareness of the Bolivian people keeps on growing. All the excluded people, all the marginalized people, the most abandoned people in the history of Bolivia have a president now.
And I feel the same thing is happening in the US. According to the information we do have, our brothers, our Afro-American brothers, and Afro-Americans, whatever you call them, they were excluded. And the struggle on this sector has been so important. So there is a growth in the integration of our people. I feel that is what I would say about a brother, as Mr. Obama, as president of the US.
In the same way, in Latin American, women who were excluded had no right to be president. Now we have two women who are presidents, in Argentina and in Chile. And these two presidents are the expression of a plural national state. Fathers of the Catholic Church, Catholics, women, workers—that is Latin America. And now, we have a president—and excuse me if this is offensive, but black. And this is proof of the diversity we have in America. But what is coming, maybe it will be very different, but maybe we can complement each other to look for equality among people, people who are here on Mother Earth.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, in the waning months of the Bush administration, relations between Bolivia and the United States have gotten worse. You asked the ambassador, the US ambassador, to leave the country, and now you have suspended relations with the DEA. How do you see—why do you see this getting so bad between the United States and Bolivia? And what’s your expectation under the new administration?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Our government, our culture has a very close relationship with human beings. We are the culture of dialogue. But we also saw in the presence of the ambassador of the US as a constant conspiracy. And I remember that I talked to you, and I actually denounced the ambassador, because he used to call me the Andean bin Laden. And the coca growers, he used to call them Taliban. That’s when I was a leader, and I was a candidate for the presidency. Permamently, from the State Department of the US, I have been accused of being a drug trafficker and a terrorist. And even now that I’m president, that continues on on the part of the embassy. I know it does not come from the American people.
I need ambassadors who are diplomats and that if there’s a possibility to cooperate, that they cooperate. If they have the possibility of doing good business, they should do it, but also that Bolivia would benefit it. But we don’t need aggression, conspiracies. Unfortunately, the financial resources that come from the US—they talk about corporation, that corporation really is financing destabilization. And so, that makes us want to be respected as a country.
Well, secondly, talking about the DEA, already during in the ’90s, the ex-commander or leader of the armed forces—his name was Moreira—he requested exclusion, that the DEA be excluded. Why? Because they didn’t respect the national police or the armed forces of my country, and they wanted to divide with others or conquer certain loyalties in the national police. I, personally, I’ve been a victim of the DEA, because sometimes they even protected drug traffickers. If they really fought against drug trafficking, it would be very different.
And when they do an operation against drugs, it’s always with political ends. When I was a representative and we had the proper documentation, they asked Evo the information about—personal information about Evo Morales and also the MAS officers. The DEA investigated directly the financial entities. Since they couldn’t find anything, they kept quiet. Once, a reporter from the newspaper called Opinion in Cochabamba told me, not publicly, just in person, that he had talked to the DEA, and the DEA were really doing investigations, but just with political ends. And that newspaper man told me that “the DEA investigated you, and they didn’t find anything.” And lately, when I was already in the government, but when the communications were in hands of the telecom company from Italy, a team of the DEA were listening phone calls to be able to spy on me. This is a political thing. And that is why that happened.
So by talking about drug-trafficking, the fight against that, I mean, this is the most advanced things in Bolivia, because we are talking about the coca growing and the confiscation of the shipments. And so, when we declared persona non grata the US ambassador, we—they say we are protecting, but that is not the culture of the indigenous people—drugs—but we want to reduce, with compensation—well, if we don’t do it the proper way, it’s not going to be any good.
And our proposal has been very clear. There is not going to be zero coca leaves growing. Therefore, we have to actually control the coca growing, but we have a very small portion, per family. It’s forty meters by forty meters—it’s not very big—per family. It’s very, very small. It’s just like the backyard of anybody’s house. And that will allow us to have a self-control, the social control. Even though we do have promise, this is how we are fighting. And we will fight drug trafficking with or without the help of the US, because this is an obligation my government has to fight against the evil that it happens, it causes on human beings.
AMY GOODMAN: So you’ll never let the Drug Enforcement agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration back in?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] We are getting organized, and we are actually setting up a national intelligence in collaboration with our neighbors Argentina, Chile, Brazil. And that way, the fight against drug trafficking is going to be more effective, but it’s going to be something that has a political element into it. If we don’t permit the DEA to come back, that doesn’t mean we’ll break relationships with the US.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales. He’s joining us in our firehouse studio for the hour. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour is the President of Bolivia, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, Evo Morales. He is here in New York. I wanted to ask you about this unprecedented meeting that took place in September, led by the presidents of Argentina and Chile, took place in Chile, as the crisis in Bolivia was deepening. You were accusing the right-wing opposition governors of staging a violent—attempting to stage a coup against you, a violent coup. A number of peasants were killed there in Bolivia. Do you think the United States was involved with this?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Well, from the time I was sworn in as president of the republic in 2006, the opposition continually tried to stop my presidency. During the first few months, they said, “Oh, poor little Indian,” that “he’s going to be four, five, six months as president, and then he’s going to leave. He’s not going to be able to lead, to be in the government.” Nevertheless, a year went by, and I was still president. I gave my speech to the Bolivian people.
And from that time on, what did the opposition do? They said, “We think that this Indian is going to stay here for a long time. We have to do something.” That something is like, get him out. In the financial and political issues, with false arguments that I was going to end with private property in Bolivia, they tried constantly to wear me down.
AMY GOODMAN: Who is they?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] The opposition, the right-wing parties, the fascists and the racists, the rest of the neoliberalism.
And since they couldn’t do anything, well, they also realized with a dirty campaign against Evo Morales, they wanted a hard vote against Evo Morales. And this year in September or October, they decided to do a civil coup, a violent coup, even though last year a commander of the armed forces announced publicly that they wanted to use the armed forces for a military coup.
But this year, what are they doing? These opposition groups, first of all, they try to overtake the national police. They couldn’t do it. They hit the members of the armed forces, they attacked them. But they couldn’t occupy the headquarters. But they did—they were able to secure some airports in the eastern part of the country, so that when the president and the ministers had to use those airports, they couldn’t use it. And they overtook more than sixty communities in Tarija and other places. And this is terrorism. They bring guns. They destroyed gas tax between Bolivia and Brazil. So that is really messing up the patrimony of the state, really.
Finally, there was a reaction of the peasant movement to recuperate INRA, which is the National Institute for Agrarian Reform, the offices. It has the charge of actually giving back the land to the indigenous people and to the peasants. And then there was a massacre. Look, they tried to occupy and take over the armed forces [inaudible]—that is sedition—and then to take the national patrimony and to burn gas. And this is terrorism. And as UNASUL declare, that there was a massacre in Pando, and this is genocide. We went through that.
But in those three aspects, you can see that there was an attempted coup that didn’t succeed. And I want to salute that, and that is the reason why I’m here in the US. I want to express my respect to the international community, because everybody condemned the coup against democracy to the rule of law, but—everybody but the US, but the ambassador of the US. It’s incredible.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, I’d like to ask you, in previous visits, we’ve talked about the long struggle to craft a new constitution for Bolivia. And our understanding now is it’s finally been crafted and that it will go to a referendum in January. What are your expectations on this referendum? And what does the new constitution signify for Bolivia?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I feel a great optimism, because we suffered a lot of discrimination, and they have called me monkey, animal, not capable of anything. And I don’t think that they have treated [President-elect] Obama the same way they treated Morales, by the opposition. Because I feel this optimism, I think we are going to succeed with the new constitution that will guarantee a united Bolivia, with guarantees for the people and a plural national state with everybody—black, white, mixed breeds, indigenous people—they are going to be united. And the law is going to include a plurality for people. It will guarantee private property, collective communal property, and also state property that belongs to the people, such as the state companies, such as the hydrocarbon industry.
But also, the new constitution will allow the Bolivian state—rather, that we are not going to allow any settlement of any military base on Bolivian soil. We will not. And we also renounce to declaring war against any of our neighbors, because war is not good for any country in any part of the world.
And the most important thing is that public services—water, telephone, energy, electricity—this is a human right. And so, it has to be a public service and not a private business.
Yes, we can talk about a lot of social achievements and civil liberties, and so on and so forth, and equality between men and women, but according some experts, this new constitution is one of the most advanced constitutions socially.
And for the first time in Bolivian history—200 years of republican life, we’ve had—this draft law will be either approved or rejected by the people, by Bolivians. We had twenty different constitutions, but just a few, a few families, a few politicians were ruling. And they didn’t take into consideration the Bolivian people. We will have a referendum, and it will be either rejected or approved, but it will be with awareness through the vote and not through violence, as it happened before with the fascist and racist groups.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to go to break again, but when we come back, I want to ask you about the G20 summit and what is called here “free trade.” This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. We’re talking to the President of Bolivia—he’s here in New York in our firehouse studio—Evo Morales. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour is the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales. The G20 summit that’s just taken place in Washington, what are your thoughts on it?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Well, finally, everybody has a right to get together, to meet. But if we are talking about a financial crisis, all countries should actually be there, and it also should be talked about at the UN. If there was a meeting of the G20, I can imagine that they are the only ones who are responsible for the financial crisis, so they have to meet, because they are responsible. Well, as I say, we all have the right to meet in groups, but this is a world problem. And the government of the US and the president of the assembly should actually call for a meeting to listen to everybody and to find solutions all together to the problem.
And according to the measures that the G20 decide upon, they are investing millions and millions of dollars, but these millions only go to the people who caused the crisis, not to the people that need the money. So, those millions of dollars should go to the victims and not to the people who caused the crisis. And so, the people that had mortgages, who couldn’t pay, or loans, or people who lost their employment, I am sure that everybody would think that it would be better that the G20 would do otherwise. I think it’s important not only that the different states participate in this financial crisis. Otherwise, there should be like an authority that will be above nationalities, above the nations that will decide.
So, Bolivia is going to be affected how? Well, the prices of our natural resources are going to go down and also many remittances. But we are ready to face this crisis, this financial crisis, and we will overcome this problem of trade, because the state is an entity that regulates the national economy and not the free market. Besides that, an important question when I became president, the reserves for the Bolivian treasury was $1,700,000. And right now, we have $8 billion. Between 2004, 2005, and in 2004, the reserves were never more than $1 billion in Bolivia. In a little bit of time, we have improved. So this gives us security that we can face this very deep financial crisis.
JUAN GONZALEZ: What do you see this crisis that started in the United States and Britain and other European countries—what does it say about the economic model that the United States has been pressing on the rest of the world now for several decades?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Well, the present models in place are not a good solution for humanity, for human beings, because it’s based on injustice and inequality. And that’s why I think there is a rebellion in Latin America against that model, that business model. Trade which is actually posed by the International Trade Organization is not a good solution either. According to my experience in my country, it is important to have the state present to overlook not only in social issues, but basically also looking into structural issues. In summary, I want to tell you that the neoliberalism is no solution for humankind, because it’s not viable.
JUAN GONZALEZ: In that vein, Argentina recently decided to nationalize the private pensions that had been developed for many of its workers, something that was not looked upon well by the financial community here in the United States. Do you see Latin American leaders going more in the direction of nationalizing resources that were sold off in previous decades?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Yes, we started nationalizing in Bolivia the hydrocarbons, for example. That doesn’t mean that the investors are going to lose their investment. As a state, we need partners, but we don’t want them to be owners of our resources. The national government guarantees that the investment can be recovered, but also we have to watch how much of that is recovered.
We also nationalized Entel, which is the telecommunications company. It was in the hands of a transnational. This company invested only where there was more population and to be able to have a lot of clients. But this is a human right. Communication is a human right, as I was saying before. You have to go into the rural areas. It doesn’t matter if you lose money, because we have to give them telecommunications.
And I feel that this process will continue on, because just I’m talking about natural resources and basic services. We want the presence of the state or the different states in social issues and structural issues. But it’s important to have the participation of the state nationalizing different companies or entities.
AMY GOODMAN: President Morales, many saw the election in the United States of Barack Obama as a kind of global election. What do you think is the single most important thing President Obama can do?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I cannot tell him anything or advise. Well, I think that this is a democracy, and this president has been elected through the vote through the people. And I repeat what I said a few moments ago. The same way as I was talking about the discrimination and offenses that I suffered, in the history of Bolivia, the indigenous movement has kept going on, but it has been always the sector that has been the most humiliated and that suffered the most.
In the past, also here, the Afro-American movement suffered great discrimination. And now, since we have a president as we have, maybe this group won’t be discriminated against. I say that because I have gone through that same experience, because in Bolivia there are some groups who think that indigenous people cannot govern, they cannot be presidents. They think that they are the only ones who went to school and that are prepared to rule, to dominate.
AMY GOODMAN: In terms of attitude to Latin America, from Cuba to Venezuela, the President of the United States?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I hope enormously that relations can be improved. I hope that the US, with President-elect, will end the trade blockade. I hope that our relations will improve and that journalists will be able to help us and will be able to go deeper into the issues. We want to complement each other to serve our people. We all need each other. What is good for the people is good for the states. So we have a certain hope for our people, because of the elections that will favor the most discriminated-upon segments of the population.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, in today’s New York Times, influential paper here in the United States, calls for the Congress to approve a free trade agreement with Colombia. Your sense of how these free trade agreements have been operating in Latin America?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Any country has a freedom to sign a free trade agreement with any other country. Each region, each nation is different. For Bolivia, this is not a solution, a free trade policy. Trade is important, but we want a fair trade that will allow to solve poverty, that will favor the most poor segments of society. And we also are working on collective companies and also small companies and medium companies. And sometimes we actually have also the collaboration of people who work in these types of businesses. If, for some people, free trade agreements are the solution, well, test time will actually show whether it was good or it was bad. But I can talk about my country. My country, even the agro-industrial people, about five or seven years ago, they were actually protesting against the free importation of goods.
AMY GOODMAN: You are headed from here, New York, today to Washington. You’ll go to the Lincoln Monument. You will be honoring Dr. King there, Dr. Martin Luther King. Why?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I want to honor my brothers, the movement, the Afro-American movement. I have the obligation to honor the people who preceded us, the ones who fought for the respect of human rights and rights in general.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. We have been joined for the hour by the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales.
Posted by Cory Doctorow, November 17, 2008 "White Rabbit Press is taking orders for a luscious set of prints reproducing the Tenniel illustrations from "The Nursery Alice," signed by one of Lewis Carroll's descendants and one of Alice's, too (as well as a noted Alice scholar)."
Visit White Rabbit Press to see more prints.
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2008-11-17 Citing Administration’s Failure and Unwillingness to use funds to Prevent Foreclosures, as Congress Intended
Washington D.C. (November 17, 2008) – Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today sent a letter to Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, recommending that Congress inform the White House that it will not authorize the second $350 billion tranche of the bailout funds to the Treasury Department. The Financial Services Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow examining oversight of the implementation of the bailout and of government lending and insurance facilities.
Kucinich heads the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, which held a hearing last Friday at which Mr. Neel Kashkari, the Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability, testified. Two days prior, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson announced that the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a fund created by Congress to unfreeze credit markets and purchase troubled mortgage assets to prevent their foreclosure, would not be used to purchase mortgage assets.
“It was clear from Interim Assistant Secretary Kashkari’s testimony that, contrary to Congressional intent, the Treasury Department has not and does not intend to use TARP for foreclosure prevention. In addition to breaking with Congressional intent, Secretary Paulson’s policy reversal contradicts public assurances previously made by the Treasury Department and leaves the federal government without an adequate mechanism to stem the rising tide of home foreclosures. Because the Treasury Department refuses to spend the resources Congress made available for foreclosure prevention, I recommend that we inform the President that we will withhold the second installment of $350 billion until a new administration takes office.” Kucinich writes.
The full text of the letter follows:
November 17, 2008
The Honorable Barney Frank
Chairman
Committee on Financial Services
2129 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Frank:
I write to commend you for your leadership in addressing the foreclosure crisis and repairing its effects on neighborhoods and to outline what I believe are the insufficient efforts of the Department of Treasury to combat the crisis. When the magnitude of the subprime and Alt-A mortgage crisis threatened the entire financial system, you led Congressional efforts in negotiating and drafting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to achieve the twin objectives of unfreezing capital markets and preventing unnecessary foreclosures. Giving the Department of Treasury broad latitude, EESA nonetheless explicitly authorized the purchase of troubled mortgage assets by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), to be accompanied by a plan to minimize foreclosures on those properties. Unfortunately, the Department of Treasury has not exercised its authority properly.
On November 12, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. announced that TARP would not acquire troubled mortgage assets, as Congress had envisioned. My Subcommittee held a hearing on November 14, 2008, where we heard testimony from Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Neel Kashkari, the top Treasury official in charge of the TARP, as well as a number of noted industry, academic, and legal experts. It was clear from Interim Assistant Secretary Kashkari’s testimony that, contrary to Congressional intent, the Treasury Department has not and does not intend to use TARP for foreclosure prevention. In addition to breaking with Congressional intent, Secretary Paulson’s policy reversal contradicts public assurances previously made by the Treasury Department and leaves the federal government without an adequate mechanism to stem the rising tide of home foreclosures. Because the Treasury Department refuses to spend the resources Congress made available for foreclosure prevention, I recommend that we inform the President that we will withhold the second installment of $350 billion until a new administration takes office.
Treasury Profoundly Misunderstands the EESA and the Mortgage Crisis
At the hearing, Interim Assistant Secretary Kashkari demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of both the purposes of EESA and the mortgage crisis underlying the financial crisis. Mr. Kashkari testified that the TARP must be limited to “investments” rather than other uses, such as the proposal by Chairman Sheila Bair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for federally guaranteed loan modifications. Not only is his interpretation inconsistent with the clear statutory authority granted the Treasury Department in EESA,[1] it is inconsistently applied by Mr. Kashkari. As Ranking Minority Member Darrell Issa pointed out at the hearing, the Treasury Department’s use of TARP to make preferred equity purchases under its Capital Purchase Program hardly qualify as pursuing an investment strategy with TARP funds, if investment is understood as a means of maximizing profit. Mr. Kashkari was forced to admit that the equity purchases were subsidies, rather than investments: “our objective was to create a program that would encourage thousands of banks across our country to voluntarily apply… so we intentionally made it attractive for them to want to apply.”
Second, Mr. Kashkari displayed a misunderstanding of the cause of and solution to the mortgage crisis. For instance, he testified, “[B]ringing mortgage rates down for borrowers is the best thing we could do to try to help homeowners avoid foreclosure and stabilizing our housing sector.” While low interest rates would help to stimulate home sales and new home construction, they would neither protect current borrowers from imminent foreclosure nor provide certainty to lenders or the secondary market about the true cost of existing toxic mortgage assets, a crucial building block to restoring mortgage lending.
Third, Mr. Kashkari employed a verbal sleight of hand to create the impression that the EESA was being implemented to help prevent foreclosures, when in fact it was not. Mr. Kashkari often referred to “Treasury” to discuss foreclosure prevention efforts, when the subject of his testimony and his relevant job responsibilities is “TARP.” We know, of course, that these terms relate to distinct entities and are not interchangeable. TARP is an asset acquisition fund, a subdivision of Treasury Department, created by EESA. Treasury, meanwhile, is the overarching regulator of the financial services industry and chief interpreter of the nation’s tax laws. The Treasury Department issued three Revenue Procedures in the past year aimed at encouraging mortgage servicers to perform more loan modifications. TARP was created by Congress after those Revenue Procedures failed on their own to effect a sufficient increase in loan modifications.
Fourth, Mr. Kashkari argued that TARP’s primary function was reestablishing liquidity and stability to the financial system. It is commonly known, however, that the troubles of the broader financial system trace their roots to millions of troubled subprime and Alt-A mortgages. Without addressing the underlying damage posed by troubled mortgage assets, Mr. Kashkari’s strategy cannot accomplish the stabilization goal of EESA.
Reducing Principal is the Necessary Federal Objective
TARP is being misused from the standpoint of EESA’s twin objectives of unfreezing credit markets and preventing foreclosures. Loan modifications, rather than low interest rates, hold the key to realizing EESA’s objectives. Indeed, as Professor Anthony Sanders testified, “[I]t is clear that home preservation and solving system risk problems can be accomplished with a sensible loan modification template of Treasury decides to deploy it.” Treasury should be pursuing
mechanism by which troubled mortgage loans can be modified in large numbers to achieve the twin goals simultaneously.
However, not all loan modifications are equal. Research by Credit Suisse demonstrates that traditional loan modifications, including extensions of term, temporarily lower interest rate, and forbearance have high redefault rates, indicating that many borrowers are not more able to make mortgage payments after receiving traditional loan modifications.[2] However, two kinds of modifications demonstrated much lower redefault (higher success) rates: interest rate freezes for loans facing imminent reset of an adjustable rate mortgage, and principal reduction modifications for loans in default.
There is ample evidence that so-called “reset modifications” are being aggressively deployed by mortgage servicers. According to Credit Suisse, the real growth in loss- mitigation activity is largely attributable to reset modifications,[3] while other traditional modifications that result in a lower monthly payment—including forbearance, repayment plans, extension of loan terms, lower interest rate—have also grown to a lesser extent. Notably, the servicing industry increased its performance of reset modifications after Treasury issued a Rev. Proc. 2007-72, creating a safe harbor from loss of the REMIC tax status for performance of reset modifications.
Principal reductions are seen by experts as solving both a borrower’s inability to make mortgage payments and unwillingness to make mortgage payments when the loan greatly exceeds the value of the house. Providing for a solution to this latter problem is extremely significant, especially in large portions of the nation where housing prices inflated fastest and longest. As Professor Sanders testified, “[W]e are in unchartered territory to the extent that there has never been a period in our history where homeowners could be as much as 50% upside down on the mortgage.”
However, the mortgage servicing industry has not moved toward making large numbers of principal modifications. In fact, all but a few servicers avoid performing principal modifications. Only one company, Ocwen, accounted for 70 percent of all principal modifications found by Credit Suisse.[4] In spite of Rev. Proc. 2008-28, which created a safe harbor for principal modifications,[5] they remain a rarely exercised option by mortgage servicers.[6]
Thus, principal reduction must be at the centerpiece of a program of loan modifications, and the role of the Federal government should be to facilitate massive numbers of them. Clearly, the private market is unable or unwilling to perform principal modifications in sufficient numbers, and the Treasury Department’s rulemaking is not an adequate stimulus on its own. In addition, the federal government should learn lessons from mortgage servicers that have distinguished themselves for aggressively performing principal modifications. Mr. Larry Litton, Chairman, Litton Loan Servicing LP, and one of the nation’s leading performers of principal modifications, testified that while principal modifications are necessary, they are not sufficient if they do not go far enough to make the loan affordable to the borrower. In an effort to curb redefault rates among loans receiving principal modifications, his company is now aiming toward reducing enough principal to result in a debt-to-income ratio of 31%, down from 39%. Many others also believe that modified loan-to-value ratio should not exceed 100% to 110%.
Options for the TARP to Prevent Foreclosures
Witnesses at the Subcommittee’s hearing testified to a number of ways to use TARP to facilitate a massive program of principal modifications. For example, Professor Michael Barr’s written testimony outlined a mechanism where the Treasury Department would use TARP to purchase whole troubled mortgages out of securitized trusts. While there are a number of technical challenges to doing this, testimony at my hearing made clear that the industry believes they can be overcome. Indeed, Mr. Tom Deutsch of the American Securitization Forum, a trade association representing all parties to asset-backed securitizations, testified that the barriers are surmountable and investors would be willing to sell troubled assets to the government at a discount from face value. TARP funds could be used to guarantee home mortgages meeting Treasury Department guidelines, similar to a recent proposal by FDIC. This idea was effectively disqualified by the Treasury Department for violating the f
