Latin American Publications!

123 readers
30 users here now

A community for Latin American publications.

NOTE: All the publications in this feed are Latin American in origin; that does not mean they only report on Latin American news.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
401
 
 

The president of the US empire, Donald Trump, has admitted and boasted once again about the use of “unprecedented weapons” during the US military invasion of Venezuela on January 3, when he ordered the bombing of the South American nation and the kidnapping of the sovereign President Nicolás Maduro and the First Lady and National Assembly Deputy Cilia Flores.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum this Wednesday, January 21, in Davos, Switzerland, Trump referred to the criminal act that murdered more than 100 people, stating that “unprecedented weapons were used two weeks ago” in Venezuela.

During his speech, referring to the US military aggression against Venezuela, he remarked that the attack with those weapons supposedly took the Bolivarian military by surprise. “Everything was chaos; they couldn’t respond.” According to him, soldiers defending Venezuela supposedly commented that “‘they were right in front of us, we pulled the trigger, and nothing happened.'”

Trump on Venezuela:

Two weeks ago, they saw weapons nobody had ever heard of. They weren’t able to fire a single shot at us.

They said, ‘What happened?’ Everything was discombobulated.

They said, ‘We’ve got them in our sights, press the trigger,’ and nothing happened. pic.twitter.com/GL832yu1pq

— Clash Report (@clashreport) January 21, 2026

In his recount, always with his characteristic arrogance, he claimed that of the anti-aircraft missiles that Venezuela has, “only one rose 30 feet, everything fell apart, ‘they were saying: What the hell is going on?'”

He further claimed, in another mocking tone toward two major powers allied with Venezuela, “those defense systems are manufactured by Russia and China, so they’re going to have to go and review their plans.”

Trump’s comments came in the context of reaffirming his plans to seize Greenland. According to him, he will not do so by force; rather, he is supposedly “placing immediate negotiations” to acquire this island, an autonomous territory colonized by Denmark.

“Our country and the world face greater risks than ever before, due to missiles, to armaments that I cannot even speak of,” Trump continued.

Trump’s sonic weapon
On Tuesday, January 20, Trump hinted in an interview that a “sonic weapon” was used in the military aggression carried out by US troops against Venezuela.

“There was a sonic weapon that took out many of the Cuban bodyguards. Is that something US nationals should be afraid of?” the NewsNation reporter asked Trump in an interview, to which the president replied: “Nobody else has it. We have weapons that nobody knows about, and I say it’s probably a good thing not to talk about them; but we have some incredible weapons. That was an incredible attack. Don’t forget that house was in the middle of a fortress, a military base,” he said, in reference to the house, not bunker or fortress, where President Maduro was kidnapped.

On January 10, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had commented on a post by US television host Mike Netter, who recounted the alleged story of a Venezuelan soldier. Referring to the US military operation against Venezuela on Saturday, January 3, the soldier described how, during combat, US troops “launched something… I don’t know how to describe it… it was like a very intense sound wave. Suddenly, I felt like my head was going to explode from the inside. We all started bleeding from the nose. Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, motionless.”

The US attacks against Venezuela claimed the lives of more than 100 people, including Venezuelan civilians and military personnel, and 32 Cuban soldiers.

On January 13, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello condemned the explosions caused by the US forces as so brutal that some victims could only be identified by their DNA.

“When we don’t talk about the number of dead or killed, it’s because the explosions were so powerful that, well, there are people whose whereabouts we don’t know,” he explained. “The blast was so extensive that it’s impossible to locate them.” This was reported on January 13 at a press conference, where he noted that the death toll from the bombings launched by the US empire against Venezuela on January 3 “exceeds 100 people killed.”

Minister Cabello announced that the country’s scientific police, the National Service of Medicine and Forensic Sciences, with the support of the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research, are conducting DNA studies on “little pieces” of “human remains” left by the bombings launched by the US against Venezuela.

Soldiers Recall Venezuela’s Heroic Resistance Against US Invasion and Trump’s Cowardly Attack

It is important to note that international humanitarian law governs the choice of methods and means of warfare, and prohibits or restricting the use of certain weapons, as the International Committee of the Red Cross points out.

The American Association of Jurists, along with other organizations from various countries, filed a lawsuit on Monday, January 12, before the International Criminal Court against the President of the US, Donald Trump, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and other officials of that government, for “alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and special consideration on the possible qualification of the taking of hostages for coercive purposes,” committed by the US empire against Venezuela.

(Diario VEA) by Yuleidys Hernández Toledo with Orinoco Tribune content

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/JRE/AU


From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

402
 
 

The medical examiner finds the Cuban detainee's death in El Paso ICE facility was homicide, not suicide.


From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

403
 
 

China has taken a series of measures targeting the US economy in response to the abduction of Maduro, a report says.


From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

404
 
 

By Pablo Meriguet  –  Jan 20, 2026

A recent report produced by a committee of experts presented new findings on the murder of social and environmental activist Berta Cáceres.

Cáceres was murdered on the night of March 2, 2016, at her home in La Esperanza, Honduras. Several hitmen entered her home and killed her. Cáceres, founder of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), had been a tireless fighter for the rights of the Honduran people. Before her murder, she had led a fight against a hydroelectric project called Agua Zarca, developed by the company Desarrollos Energéticos SA (DESA), which faced strong opposition from the Indigenous Lenca people.

After a lengthy trial, the head of DESA, David Castillo, was convicted as a co-perpetrator of the murder. Shortly thereafter, seven people, including former military personnel (among them a major in the Honduran Army), were also convicted as perpetrators of the crime against the environmental leader.

However, several questions remained unanswered, so the investigation carried out by the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI) sought to gather more information and make sense of a criminal plot that apparently goes beyond a simple act of political violence.

Some of the GIEI’s findingsIn addition to reconfirming that Cáceres’ murder was not an accidental or spontaneous act, but rather premeditated through an organized criminal operation linked to the Agua Zarca project, the GIEI demonstrated through reports that included communications, money transfers, geolocators, and other evidence that the crime is directly related not only to the executives of the DESA company, but also to members of the Atala family.

The GIEI also showed how the funds to guarantee the company’s “security” came from abroad, were then triangulated to offshore accounts, and later deposited into accounts in Honduras. In December 2015, a deposit of USD 2.6 million was made to the CONCASA account, money that would later be distributed to different companies linked to the project’s security measures. This part of the investigation shows that the money that financed Cáceres’ murder may have come from abroad.

**How were the hitmen paid?**What is certain is that just 48 hours after the murder, approximately 549,892 lempiras (around USD 24,000) were paid out in the form of three checks to low-ranking DESA employees, who, according to testimony, handed the money over to intermediaries. One of the convicted men, Mariano Díaz, confirmed that these checks were the hitmen’s payment.

The GIEI states that this modus operandi, in which low-ranking employees were instructed to cash checks and then hand over the money to other individuals, was a common practice. This is how other types of dishonest, corrupt, and criminal practices were covered up. The GIEI has also drawn attention to how these attitudes contravene anti-money laundering regulations.

More than 200 communications analyzedConcerning the technical analysis of Cáceres’ murder, the GIEI created a timeline before and after the murder of Cáceres between the coordinators of the crime (Douglas Bustillo, Henry Hernández) and the perpetrators, as well as the connections between them and the financial and business operators (Castillo, Atala). Nearly 200 communications (phone calls, chats, antenna records) were studied to create the communications diagram.

Before her murder, Cáceres had requested and been offered security due to the high risk to her life. The GIEI demonstrated that the death threat was present before March 2. There had been previous attempts to assassinate her using the same financial scheme explained above. On February 2, 2016, a payment of 50,000 lempiras was detected by a CONCASA employee, after which there were several communications similar to those on the day of the murder, one month later. This shows that the practice of economically powerful groups assassinating social and environmental leaders in Honduras is not new.

Who Governs Honduras?

The enormous political and media influence of the powerfulTo this end, the GIEI demonstrates in its report that there are networks of informants who are paid to share information with the DESA company, including police officers who allegedly received money in exchange for providing a police presence in certain locations. It also revealed the shameful payment of journalists and media outlets to shape the public narrative regarding various social phenomena. This reveals a complex and comprehensive strategy to maintain control of information and weaken social groups that opposed the project.

But the report also documents the enormous influence that companies such as DESA have over the police. According to the GIEI, there is clear evidence of infiltration and conflicts of interest in the initial stage of the investigation: police officers with clear links to DESA participated in the analysis of the crime scene; evidence was planted, phones were tapped, and a protected witness was impersonated; harassment of a key witness to the crime, as well as several members of COPINH, was documented.

In this way, several media outlets attempted to construct a narrative according to which the aim was to criminalize Cáceres’s circle rather than investigate the business, criminal, and financial networks that were actually behind the murder.

Bertha Zúniga and Laura Zúniga of COPINH

Bertha Zúniga and Laura Zúniga, daughters of Berta Cáceres and members of COPINH. Photo: COPINH

Responsibility of financial institutionsHowever, the GIEI also criticizes and considers financial institutions that do not effectively control money triangulations used to finance illegal activities to be indirectly responsible. The report states that these institutions did not activate the necessary control mechanisms that could help prevent crimes such as that committed against Cáceres.

Thus, the GIEI report has revealed a complex criminal network associated with the DESA company, which bases its power not only on the use of hitmen and brute force (as many media outlets still want to establish), but also on its penetration of various public institutions (police, justice, etc., acting directly or by omission) and private institutions (media, journalists, etc., which use their influence to redirect narratives, and financial institutions that failed to identify and stop these criminal schemes).

The report concludes that the murder of Berta Cáceres was a corporate, financial, and political crime, whose implications transcend an individual murder, as it affects human rights defenders and the regulation of megaprojects in indigenous territories. Furthermore, it empirically demonstrated how the resources of “development projects” can be used for social repression and political assassination, as well as to infiltrate private interests into institutions clearly and forcefully.

(Peoples Dispatch)


From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

405
 
 

By Karim Sharara  –  Jan 16, 2026

Mainstream media’s reliance on US-funded “Iranian human rights” NGOs reveals a recycled regime-change pipeline, where anonymous activists are used with opaque finances to treat propaganda like facts.

“2,000 protesters killed, activists say.”

My, my, it seems anonymous activists are really all the rage in Western media, with this headline being parroted (in multiple forms, no doubt). Because if it’s in The GuardianBBC, and CNN, among others, it has to be “true”, particularly when it’s Iran they’re talking about.

But really, journalistic integrity is about citing sources, and if these “unbiased”, “professional”, and “objective” outlets are good at anything, it’s choosing the proper organizations to cite, which are in no way affiliated with suspect sources.

After all, it’s not suspect if it’s the CIA or the US federal government, right?

**Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA)**Take HRANA, for instance, which is THE go-to “agency” cited by Western media.

Arrest figures? HRANA.
Death tolls? HRANA.
Names of the arrested? HRANA.
Claims of repression cited by Reuters, AP, the BBC, CNN, and The New York Times? HRANA.

According to its website, “Human Rights Activists in Iran (also known as HRAI and HRA) is a non-political and non-governmental organization comprised of advocates who defend human rights in Iran. HRAI was founded in 2005.”

Contrary to the name, the Human Rights Activists in Iran organization is not, in fact, in Iran, but rather operates from the comfort of Virginia, in the United States. Kind of like when you buy Brussels sprouts expecting something European but then find out they were “imported” from California.

HRANA also makes this claim: “Because the organization seeks to remain independent, it doesn’t accept financial aid from either political groups nor governments.”

Oddly enough, no Western media source has disclosed that HRANA is being funded by the NED (National Endowment for Democracy), which was established to keep CIA funding covert, according to its co-founder Allen Weinstein, who had said, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

HRANAwas founded by Keyvan Rafiee in 2006, in Virginia, and according to tax filings dating back to 2012 (when Rafiee only got $59,000 in tax-exempt donations) he is now raking in a comfortable $1 million dollars in donations.

In total, Rafiee has taken $10.7 million from 2012 to 2025, no doubt from “good Samaritans” donating funds to his Patreon.

CHRIThe Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI), much like HRANA, is also being cited by mainstream media as a credible source, amassing “over 7,000 international media citations in 2022,” according to its own website. Also like HRANA, it identifies itself as an “independent, nonpartisan” nonprofit organization (seems like it’s a mantra they all use).

With nonprofit being the keyword here, Hadi Ghaemi, CHRI’s founder and executive director, gave himself more than $200,000 in compensation from US taxpayer money just last year for his tiring work in advancing human rights, almost double the $105,000 he received in 2013.

It’s noteworthy that Ghaemi had claimed in 2009 that he had never received any sort of funding from the US government or NED, speaking in particular regarding his work for United4Iran, another organization he founded.

From 2012 to 2024, CHRI, registered as Campaign For Human Rights Inc and tax-exempt since 2011, has received $16.3 million, also in tax-exempt donations. However, because of the lack of transparency regarding the organization’s finances, the source of the funding could not be ascertained.

TavaanaOne of the most active organizations among Iranian dissident groups is Tavaana. On its website, it brands itself as “Iran’s premier civic education and civil society capacity building initiative.” You’d think to yourself it’s based in Iran until you’re hit quite boldly in the next sentence with “Launched in 2010 with a seed grant from the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) at the US Department of State.”

Going through tax files related to Tavaana will net you nothing; that’s because the taxes are filed under the name “E Collaborative For Civic Education,” Tavaana’s parent organization, which has been tax-exempt since 2011. The tax filings show that the organization received grants totaling $250,000 in 2011, which quickly skyrocketed to a high of $1.9 million in 2014. In total, from 2011 to 2024, Tavaana received a total of $15.9 million in donations.

Looking at the scope of activities it’s involved in, and how its online courses are about sharing articles similar to eHow on circumventing internet restrictions in Iran, it’s difficult to see where those millions of dollars went… Either that or they were contracted to write the most expensive compilation of e-brochures.

Venezuela and Iran: A Shared Struggle

According to a NED booklet authored by Sherry Ricchiardi for NED’s Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) and published on March 13, 2014, “The Tavaana project’s parent organization, the E-Collaborative for Civic Education, has received support from the National Endowment for Democracy, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the United States Agency for International Development.”

“Program Manager Layla Attia listed some of the project’s accomplishments, including 29 e-courses and 47 webinars on such topics as women’s rights, digital safety, gay rights in Islam, social entrepreneurship, democratic institutions, and power searching on Google. Participants connect securely from Iran to anonymous e-classrooms, and so far none have reported being compromised, according to Attia.”

Imagine being an American and finding out that $100,000 of your tax dollars was spent to teach “power searching on Google.”

Tavaana’s co-founders are Akbar Atri and Mariam Memarsadeghi. Atri has largely been inactive on social media since 2018, but Mariam Memarsadeghi paints a different tale. She is an avid supporter of “Israel”, as seen in her bio, which features an Israeli flag, and has even called for US and Israeli strikes on her own country, the last time being just a few days ago:

This is not a time for nuance.

It is a time for American B2 bombers all over Iran. pic.twitter.com/5MuZNk9l0j

— Mariam Memarsadeghi (@memarsadeghi) January 13, 2026

Perhaps more interestingly, she is also an avid monarchist, who advocates giving power to a man whose sole claim to fame is being born with a saffron spoon in his mouth and who has gone on record saying he doesn’t know what he’ll be going back to, if he ever returns to Iran, suggesting he may live between the US and Iran because he has spent his entire life in the US.

This is the same man who thought showing pictures of himself doing yoga would somehow give him better optics.

One prominent Iranian dissident, Ruhollah Zam, who was involved in directing anti-Iran operations (including teaching rioters how to make homemade weapons through his Amad News Telegram channels), and later captured and repatriated in an intelligence operation, has also gone on record years ago telling people in a video call that he’s seen the late shah’s son practising inspecting troops in front of his bedroom mirror.

Iran Disinformation ProjectOne short-lived project started directly with US State Department funding was the Iran Disinformation Project, after, according to The Guardian, “it was found to be trolling US journalists, human rights activists and academics it deemed to be insufficiently hostile to the government in Tehran.”

Once @IranDisinfo began targeting mainstream journalists for not being radically anti-Iran, buzzers went off, and their funding was cut. “The bulk of the work by @IranDisinfo has been in line with the scope of a project with the Department of State. We have, however, identified recent tweets that fall outside the scope of the project to counter foreign state propaganda or disinformation,” one State Department spokesperson said.

The tweets in question were then deleted, but funding was not restored. The page can still be seen on Twitter, inactive since 2019.

Boroumand Center for Human Rights in IranOne of the most effective organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy is the Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, co-founded by dissident sisters Ladan and Roya Boroumand. Its board of directors features prominent neocon-turned-something-or-other Francis Fukuyama (post-neocon liberal institutionalist is what my search tells me he is, and for some reason, that’s an actual thing), and prominent Iranian celebrities, such as Nazanin Boniadi.

In 2024, NED presented its “partner” Roya Boroumand a medal “in recognition of her leadership and dedication to the promotion of human rights and democracy in Iran.”

In particular, the NED statement read: “Roya along with her sister Ladan Boroumand, a former Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at NED, have dedicated their lives to upholding human rights in Iran.”

From 2011 to 2024, the Boroumand Center received $13.5 million in tax-exempt donations in the US. Before that, information suggests that it was bankrolled by contributions from foundations, such as the influential right-wing Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars each year per donor.

The Boroumand Center has also collaborated with and received funding from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

Curiously, the Center’s What We Do page reads: “Our goal is to prepare for a peaceful and democratic transition in Iran and build a more just future.”

One would think that people who are so avid to preserve democracy and democratic practices, even being honored with prestigious awards for their work, would do better than to amplify a call for the firing of Iranian academics in the US asking questions about the Mossad’s involvement in the riots, particularly ones as distinguished as Hamid Dabashi.

On Jan 12, Ladan Boroumand also amplified a post by Iranian dissident Omid Shams in which he discussed how an attack on Iran can be justified under “humanitarian intervention”.

It seems that a recurring theme of Iranian dissidents abroad is how hard they all cheer for strikes on their own country, but none have taken it as far as Masih Alinejad, who seems to have spearheaded the opposition, much to the chagrin of many dissidents who call her an opportunist.

Through her work in VOA Farsi (VOA meaning Voice of America, because it’s an American network), which is directly funded by the State Department, through which Alinejad has called for strikes, regime change, sanctions, and all manner of actions by the US against her country, she has catapulted into the frontlines of the opposition. She has also received hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments for her work with VOA Farsi.

A regime-change ecosystem
So the next time you’re told, very solemnly, that “2,000 protesters were killed, activists say,” it may be worth asking a dangerous question: which activists, funded by whom, operating from where, and with what openly stated political objectives?

Because what emerges here isn’t an ecosystem of independent human rights advocacy, but a tightly interlinked industry of regime-change NGOs, generously financed by US government cutouts, recycled endlessly through Western newsrooms that treat “Virginia-based Iranian activists” as a substitute for on-the-ground verification.

Maybe the real miracle isn’t that these figures are uncritically repeated, but that after Iraq’s WMDs, Libya’s humanitarian war, Syria’s “moderate rebels”, and every other CIA-flavored moral crusade, we’re still expected to gasp in awe when someone from the mainstream has “trust me bro” for a source.

(Al Mayadeen – English)


From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

406
 
 

This editorial by Arturo Huerta González originally appeared in the January 20, 2026 issue of La Jornada de Oriente, the Puebala edition of Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those ofMexico Solidarity Mediaor theMexico Solidarity Project*.*

It’s important to remember that when Salinas de Gortari governed the country, he declared that his economic policy was the only acceptable one. Like Margaret Thatcher, he championed a policy of more market and less government intervention, fiscal austerity, free trade, exchange rate stability, and deregulation of the financial sector. This led to the December 1994 crisis. The irony is that this policy continues to this day despite recurring economic crises and the resulting stagnation, because it serves the interests of the hegemonic financial sector and international corporations. Despite this, the current administration maintains that economic policy will not change.

The government defends its policies, claiming they are not neoliberal, that they have reduced poverty and extreme poverty, and that minimum wages have increased. While the share of wages in national income has improved, it has not boosted economic activity. This is because, although increased purchasing power boosted demand, it was channeled into imports as a consequence of trade liberalization and the cheap dollar. Therefore, it did not generate internal multiplier effects in favor of industrial and agricultural production, nor did it create more formal employment. What the government has failed to mention is that the social policies implemented were financed at the expense of reduced public investment, which fell by 22.8% in the third quarter… This negatively impacts the growth of the productive sector and the creation of formal jobs, which in 2025 totaled only 278,697 registered with IMSS (Mexican Social Security Institute). This is insufficient, given that over one million young people enter the labor market annually, leaving them unemployed or underemployed in the informal economy, without guaranteed wages or any employment benefits. Without economic growth and the creation of formal jobs, the poverty reduction targets touted by the current administration will not be met. Poverty is not combated with social policies alone, but rather with the creation of well-paid formal employment, which is not currently happening.

The national economy is facing increasingly serious problems. From 2018 to 2024, it grew at an average annual rate of 0.8%, less than in previous administrations, and in 2025 it is projected to grow by around 0.3% . There are no prospects that the current administration will reverse the downward trend created by the prevailing economic policy, which is detrimental to national production, employment, and economic growth. The Mexican Stock Exchange is projected to grow by 34.6% from January 2, 2025, to January 16, 2026, but in a context of stagnant economic growth, speculation is unsustainable, which will cause the stock market to fall and the peso to devalue.

The prevailing neoliberal economic policy — characterized by budget cuts aimed at avoiding fiscal deficits and increased public debt , coupled with high interest rates , a weak dollar (strong peso) , and free trade, where most products from USMCA countries are tariff-free — is unsustainable. It is contracting public and private investment , hindering job creation, and leading to the displacement of domestic production by imports. Domestic producers are becoming undercapitalized, over-indebted, and insolvent, which will destabilize the banking sector.

This is increasing discontent among broad sectors of the population who question the policies that affect them. The unresolved economic, political, and social problems generated by economic policy will ultimately lead to crisis.

Every crisis requires a rethinking and modification of the economic policies that generated it. The problem is that, despite recurring economic crises, the same policies persist, given the economic and political power of the sectors that benefit from them. But this has its limits. The growing problems will change the balance of power. Those affected, such as basic grain producers, transporters, and many others, are mobilizing and demanding that policies respond to the needs of the majority and stop favoring the financial sector, imports, and transnational corporations. This discontent will be even greater when the crisis manifests itself, as international support will no longer be available, given the problems many economies are facing.

Some policymakers have argued that the proposals of critical economists to address the country’s problems—such as drastically reducing interest rates, increasing public spending to boost the domestic market and import substitution, and regulating the movement of goods and capital, including the banking and financial sector —would be disastrous, extremely bad, and would increase unemployment. They maintain that current free-market policies are preferable. It should be noted that neoliberal policies have led to stagnant economic growth and frequent crises. Therefore, the policies that should be implemented to restore growth are those that were in place in Mexico from the late 1930s until 1981, when we experienced an average annual growth rate of 6.4%.

The government cannot say that its first strategic objective is to maintain the trade agreement with the US and Canada, which, although it has increased trade , is controlled by transnational companies , has led us to have less industry, less production of basic grains, fewer formal jobs, as well as to depend on the ups and downs of the US economy and government.

The government’s main objective should be the implementation of monetary, fiscal, exchange rate and credit policies aimed at boosting industry, agriculture, employment, as well as reducing the foreign trade deficit and dependence on capital inflows, in order to generate better endogenous conditions for accumulation and growth.

  • Old Wine, New Bottles?

    Analysis

    Old Wine, New Bottles?

    January 21, 2026January 21, 2026

    While the share of wages in national income has increased in Mexico, trade liberalization, displacement of domestic production by imports, high interest rates & waning public spending hamper growth & maintain continuity with the much-maligned neoliberal period.

  • Canada Moves to China, What About Mexico?

    Analysis

    Canada Moves to China, What About Mexico?

    January 21, 2026January 21, 2026

    While it might have been argued until recently that countries like Brazil possess unparalleled geographical, historical, & economic advantages [compared to Mexico], Carney’s recent visit to China invalidates this interpretation.

  • People’s Mañanera January 21

    Mañanera

    People’s Mañanera January 21

    January 21, 2026January 21, 2026

    President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on filling potholes, US military Hercules aircraft in Toluca, expelling criminals to the US, and electoral reform.

The post Old Wine, New Bottles? appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

407
 
 

This editorial by Enrique Dussel Peters originally appeared in the January 21, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those ofMexico Solidarity Mediaor theMexico Solidarity Project*.*

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently completed a four-day visit to China (January 14-17, 2026). Its implications are of paramount importance for the Americas, the focus of the new US national security policy, which was announced in late November 2025.

The recent context of Canada’s relationship with the United States is significant, considering a nearly 9,000-kilometer border and a very long historical, migratory, economic, and cultural relationship, also full of complexities. In 2024, approximately 76 percent of Canada’s exports were concentrated in the United States, a percentage surpassed only by Mexico (83 percent). China has consolidated its position as Canada’s second-largest trading partner, also with growing trade deficits (although not as high as Mexico’s deficit with Canada’s energy and mineral exports).

Beyond Trump’s numerous pronouncements about Canada—repeatedly since 2025, aiming to make Canada the 51st US state, not unlike his ambitions in Greenland—relations with the United States have become increasingly unpredictable and erratic. Until the end of 2025, Washington imposed a 35 percent tariff on Canadian goods, with the exception of energy products and potash (10 percent). Trump has emphasized that he does not need Canada or its trade, and the various bilateral trade negotiations have not yielded concrete results until early 2026, despite increased border spending by the Canadian government to reduce undocumented immigration and increase fentanyl seizures, among other things.

As recent as mid-January 2026, Trump dismissed the USMCA as “irrelevant” and explicitly stated regarding Canada that “if they can make a trade deal with China, that’s what they should do.” At the same time, the US president has focused his attention on Canada and the Canadian Arctic (1.4 million square kilometers) and its relevance to the new national security strategy.

The first of the “Two Michaels”: Canadian Michael Kovrig, an inept spy whose own employer International Crisis Group (funded by NATO governments) admitted on Canadian state television that Kovrig was involved in “non-traditional intelligence gathering in China” with dissident ethnic populations and was accused by the other Michael of dragging him into espionage activities in a successful lawsuit against Canada’s federal government, was detained by the People’s Republic of China in December 2018.

Canada’s contemporary relations with China, on the other hand, have also been complex. In 2018, bilateral relations experienced significant strain following the arrest of Meng Wanzhou (Huawei’s chief financial officer) in Vancouver and two Canadians in China; accusations of Chinese interference in internal affairs and mutual tariff increases (on electric vehicles and various canola products, among others) reflected the atmosphere of deep mistrust between the two sides.

In this context, the new Carney administration has sought to emphasize options for effectively diversifying Canada’s international relations and trade (with the explicit goal of increasing non-U.S. trade by up to 50 percent over the next 10 years); initially through the meeting with President Xi Jinping in South Korea in October 2025 and now through his visit to Beijing. At least three aspects are significant regarding the outcome of this meeting in mid-January 2026.

On the one hand, China attached great importance to the Canadian visit, emphasizing their differing national circumstances and the importance of respecting its sovereignty to overcome recent bilateral limitations. Multiple meetings between the Canadian delegation and China resulted in cooperation agreements on trade, customs, energy, construction, culture, and public security.

Second. The joint statement from China and Canada highlights the new strategic partnership between the two nations and emphasizes key aspects: resolving trade disputes, improving the business environment for companies from both countries, and various follow-up actions on bilaterally agreed issues, in addition to agricultural and financial matters, and the commitment to support multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the United Nations system. These commitments will need to be monitored in the short and medium term. As a first step, Canada allowed an import quota of 49,000 electric vehicles with a tariff of 6.1 percent (below the previous 100 percent and in line with measures taken by the United States), and China would reduce the tariff on canola and its byproducts to an average of approximately 15 percent (below the previous 84 percent), among other products.

In 2024, approximately 76 percent of Canada’s exports were concentrated in the United States, a percentage surpassed only by Mexico at 83 percent.

Third. Carney’s visit is also particularly relevant for Canada from a medium- and long-term strategic perspective. It is a meeting in Beijing, already in the midst of discussions on the review/renegotiation of the USMCA; Canada is asserting its right to diversify its international relations with China (and other countries) in the face of the erratic measures of Trump’s second presidency, who seems to acknowledge and give his approval, while continuing to pressure Canada on its territorial claims and in the USMCA negotiations themselves.

All of the above is fundamental for Latin America and the Caribbean. The United States and Trump have been very clear in their new national security strategy and their aggressive relationship with the region (La Jornada, 10/12/25). Countries like Brazil, and now Canada, have taken steps to—without abandoning their relationship with the United States—allow for effective strategic diversification, including trade aspects, but from a much broader perspective than just the economic one.

While it might have been argued until recently that countries like Brazil possess unparalleled geographical, historical, and economic advantages, Carney’s recent visit to China invalidates this interpretation. For Canada, this represents a concrete and substantive strategic move with significant implications for the new global triangular relationships. Carney has repeatedly acknowledged a new global (trade) order and the critical importance of the United States in the face of China’s growing influence.

And Mexico?

Enrique Dussel Peters is head of the Centre for China-Mexico Studies (CECHIMEX) at Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM). He is also coordinator of the China-Latin America Academic Network (Red ALC-China).

  • Old Wine, New Bottles?

    Analysis

    Old Wine, New Bottles?

    January 21, 2026January 21, 2026

    While the share of wages in national income has increased in Mexico, trade liberalization, displacement of domestic production by imports, high interest rates & waning public spending hamper growth & maintain continuity with the much-maligned neoliberal period.

  • Canada Moves to China, What About Mexico?

    Analysis

    Canada Moves to China, What About Mexico?

    January 21, 2026January 21, 2026

    While it might have been argued until recently that countries like Brazil possess unparalleled geographical, historical, & economic advantages [compared to Mexico], Carney’s recent visit to China invalidates this interpretation.

  • People’s Mañanera January 21

    Mañanera

    People’s Mañanera January 21

    January 21, 2026January 21, 2026

    President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on filling potholes, US military Hercules aircraft in Toluca, expelling criminals to the US, and electoral reform.

The post Canada Moves to China, What About Mexico? appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

408
 
 

Every day, President Claudia Sheinbaum gives a morning presidential press conference and Mexico Solidarity Media posts English language summaries, translated by Mexico Solidarity’s Pedro Gellert Frank. Previous press conference summaries are available here.

Mega Pothole-Filling Program 2026: Historic Investment in Highways and Jobs

The Mexican Government will invest 50 billion pesos (US$2.87 billion) in the Mega Pothole-Filling program to repave federal highways. There will be a control center that will travel each week along the 43,000 km of the federal highway network to attend to potholes in less than 72 hours. The program includes repairs along 8,000 km of highways and involves creating more than 100,000 jobs.

Hercules Aircraft in Toluca: Bilateral Cooperation Without Violating the Law

President Claudia Sheinbaum explained that she made the decision for a Mexican plane to transport those who will receive training, instead of one coming from the United States.

Sheinbaum clarified that no Senate approval is required since it does not involve foreign troops and that it is part of bilateral cooperation, in which Mexicans train in the United States and U.S. personnel train in Mexico.

Delivery of 37 Drug Lords to the US: Mexico’s Sovereign Decision

The President explained that the handing over of 37 prisoners linked to organized crime did not involve an agreement with Donald Trump, but rather a response to a request from the U.S. Department of Justice.

She emphasized that it was a sovereign decision, made within the framework of bilateral cooperation, based on national security, the defense of sovereignty, and Mexico’s well-being.

Electoral Reform: The Opposition Recycles Fear to Hide Its Past

Sheinbaum pointed out that the opposition resorts to repetitive and hypocritical rhetoric by labeling her administration as “authoritarian” or a “narco-government,” with the aim of diverting attention from former Security Minister García Luna, who is imprisoned in the US for ties to drug trafficking.

She added that those who today position themselves as defenders of democracy held public office in the past without clarifying their role in electoral frauds and other irregularities, thus displaying double standards.

Lie Detector: Disinformation on Alleged Government Abuses and Shortcomings

  • It is not true that cell phone line registration allows the Government to access users’ personal data.
  • It is not true that anyone can register a line in someone else’s name.
  • It is not true that the Federico Gómez Children’s Hospital lacks medical care or mistreats patients.
  • It is not true that the Tax Administration Service will freeze bank accounts en masse.
  • It is not true that the SAT monitors or fines taxpayers for participating in informal savings pools (tandas).

The 4T fights lies with information, transparency, and the truth.


  • Old Wine, New Bottles?

    Analysis

    Old Wine, New Bottles?

    January 21, 2026January 21, 2026

    While the share of wages in national income has increased in Mexico, trade liberalization, displacement of domestic production by imports, high interest rates & waning public spending hamper growth & maintain continuity with the much-maligned neoliberal period.

  • Canada Moves to China, What About Mexico?

    Analysis

    Canada Moves to China, What About Mexico?

    January 21, 2026January 21, 2026

    While it might have been argued until recently that countries like Brazil possess unparalleled geographical, historical, & economic advantages [compared to Mexico], Carney’s recent visit to China invalidates this interpretation.

  • People’s Mañanera January 21

    Mañanera

    People’s Mañanera January 21

    January 21, 2026January 21, 2026

    President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on filling potholes, US military Hercules aircraft in Toluca, expelling criminals to the US, and electoral reform.

The post People’s Mañanera January 21 appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

409
 
 

By Seyed Mohammad Marandi – January 17, 2026

In a move that stunned the world, the United States military launched attacks across the Venezuelan capital, bombing multiple sites, including a major academic and scientific center and a medical warehouse, as if to stress the similarities between US and Zionist troops. The operation culminated in the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and the murder of roughly 100 people.

This shameless act followed months of escalation. It began with threats over fabricated allegations of drug shipments, followed by a military buildup in the Caribbean. Then came a series of deadly missile strikes on boats, strikes that legal experts worldwide decried as unlawful, murdering over a hundred people, not all of them even Venezuelan. Most victims were likely ordinary fishermen or others simply struggling to feed their families.

Then, predictably, the narrative shifted to the real objective: oil. One hour after President Maduro was abducted, the White House made its announcement. The world looked on with disgust and shock to see a shackled head of state, albeit in high spirits, alongside his wife, who had been badly beaten by US troops.

The US president declared that Venezuela’s oil, the planet’s largest proven reserves, was now an indefinite American asset. From here on, its many billions in sovereign wealth were to be funneled through and stolen by Washington.

In Caracas, the response was a nation’s fury. The vice president and now acting president of Venezuela denounced an illegal, illegitimate kidnapping, a blatant violation of the UN Charter and all norms of human decency. Global condemnation was swift and widespread, emanating from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. It came from every corner except the capitals of Washington’s closest allies: the Israeli regime, the European Union, and other pro-Western regimes.

A new line was being drawn in real time for the whole world to see. A world leader abducted by a foreign army. A nation’s wealth declared the permanent property of another. The so-called rules-based international order torn to shreds. But the story is far from over. Resistance in Venezuela is alive.

This brings us to the Iran-Venezuela partnership, an alliance branded from the outset by the empire as a global threat. It is no coincidence that Zionists and neoconservatives target Iran and Venezuela simultaneously. Their partnership represents a formidable challenge to this era of predatory imperialism. Its significance lies not only in economic and political cooperation, but in the awareness, solidarity, and understanding forged among the global majority, a force whose power cannot be measured in material terms. The demonization promoted by the empire and its media machine loses much of its potency as most people across Latin America and West Asia recognize their shared truths, ideals, and aspirations. This recognition is poison to the empire.

Despite Western asset theft, sanctions, violent regime-change operations, color revolution projects, and even war, the empire’s crafted narrative remains singular and dark: a strategic menace, an axis of anti-American authoritarianism, a marriage between two so-called pariah states. Within this frame, allegations build into a manufactured climate of fear. The partnership is branded as a pact for authoritarian cooperation. But in truth, it has become the world’s most advanced laboratory for evading illegal sanctions, sanctions deployed by the US and its allies to strangle nations, collapse economies, destroy jobs, increase poverty, break families, kill the sick for lack of medicine, unravel the fabric of societies, and bring nations to their knees.

The empire portrays a somehow sinister shadow economy conducting its business in the dark, on the high seas. This characterization is then made to morph inevitably into the ultimate security threat: military advisers, Iranian drones on Venezuelan soil, culminating in some alleged Hezbollah link. Here the narrative makes its decisive leap, transforming the threat from mere economic into something framed as existential, an illusion of danger to the United States itself. Finally, it is presented as a grand conspiracy: two isolated regimes plotting to invade the US with immigrants and refugees, kill its population with drugs, and other accusations that, while insane, remain tragically believable to a large segment of the heavily propagandized American public.

This is the narrative. It has been used to justify many years of barbaric sanctions against women and children. And now it has justified the abduction of a sovereign nation’s president and the massacre of roughly 200 people. This so-called criminal partnership is, of course, something else entirely. It is a determined collaboration between two nations forging an alternative path, a practical blueprint for preserving their independence in the face of aggression and collective punishment by the United States.

The relentless focus on an alleged global terrorist threat is a strategic distraction. This framing is designed to obscure the tangible daily realities that truly bind these brotherly nations: the engineers reviving refineries, the agricultural technology feeding cities, the 20-year strategic plan signed in Tehran. This is the real struggle, not merely to survive, but to sustain a modern state against a comprehensive and barbaric economic siege.

Let us interrogate the architecture of the story itself: how a narrative is weaponized, brick by brick, until the wall it builds is so high it conceals the human reality on the other side, justifying any action taken behind it. In the struggle for a multipolar world, who defines terrorism? Who defines legitimacy and morality? And what price are nations forced to pay to write their own history?

For Iran, this relationship is more than a mere strategic or economic alliance. It is the execution of a national mission, a principle engraved into the very foundations of the state. The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is explicit. It contains a revolutionary mandate committing the state to the defense of the mustaz’afin, the oppressed and the downtrodden wherever they may be. This principle provides a lens through which the struggles of the Palestinian, but also the Bosnian, the South African, the Cuban, and yes, the Venezuelan, are seen as one and the same: a unified struggle against imperial domination and oppression.

This is not theoretical. It is a record of action. When most of the world’s governments were still conducting business with apartheid South Africa, the newly formed Islamic Republic of Iran immediately severed all ties. It became a vocal champion of the ANC and other resistance organizations, offering critical support to the anti-apartheid struggle while the West backed white supremacist rule. In the 1990s, as Europe stood by and watched a genocide unfold in Bosnia, Iran acted. It defied a UN arms embargo to provide the Bosnian army with crucial weapons, supplies, and military advisers, a lifeline that was key to ensuring the nation’s survival.

So when Iran looks at Venezuela today, an independent nation under brutal economic warfare, its assets stolen, its leader now abducted, it does not see a mere strategic partner. Iran sees a shared struggle against oppression. This constitutional and ideological imperative makes its principled stance more than a byproduct of the alliance. It is the soul of the alliance. And it is from this bedrock principle that, despite threats, cooperation has grown: a partnership forged in the urgent practical need to breathe life into an economy under siege. This reveals the real story, not of a dark axis, but of a blueprint for economic sovereignty forged in defiance of a brutal hegemon.

The partnership between Iran and Venezuela is neither ancient nor inevitable. It is a modern creation, forged by a shared vision of a multipolar world and hardened in the relentless pressure cooker of economic siege. For most of history, Tehran and Caracas were distant acquaintances. That changed at the turn of the century with a powerful fusion of ideologies: Bolivarian socialism and Islamic revolutionary thought, united by a single towering conviction, resistance to unipolar dominance.

The strategic bridge between Caracas and Tehran began construction in the early 2000s under Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Iran’s Mohammad Khatami. Their diplomatic courtship started in earnest in 2001 and was cemented through reciprocal state visits and major cooperation agreements in energy and construction. The partnership evolved further under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, solidifying from 2005 onward into a declared axis of unity against US imperialism.

The scale of cooperation for two heavily sanctioned nations was quite remarkable. They signed more than 270 bilateral deals. In 2007, they announced a $2 billion joint fund to invest in other countries attempting to liberate themselves. The commitment was underscored in 2006 when Chávez pledged that Venezuela would stay by Iran at any time and under any condition. By March 2005, the expanding partnership and Venezuela’s backing of Iran’s nuclear program was causing alarm within the US administration.

On the ground, Iranian firms built ammunition and cement factories, opened a car plant, and launched direct air links between their capitals. The value of Iranian industrial projects in Venezuela reached $4 billion, and bilateral trade had grown significantly by 2008. The bond held firm under Nicolás Maduro. However, the relationship soon faced its most severe challenge: comprehensive, crushing sanctions from the United States. This external pressure transformed their axis into a vital practical lifeline. Vision alone does not keep the lights on. Consequently, the alliance evolved from a union of rhetoric into a pragmatic pact for survival and development.

By 2020, Venezuela’s refining industry had collapsed. In response, Iran dispatched five tankers carrying 60 million gallons of gasoline on a defiant 15,000-kilometer voyage, with both nations warning the US against interference. This was a bold rescue mission for energy sovereignty, later formalized into a €110-million contract to repair Venezuela’s El Palito refinery. The cooperation, however, expanded far beyond oil. An Iranian supermarket chain opened in Caracas, and the two nations even launched joint nanotechnology research. This was a comprehensive project for building sovereign capacity, encompassing everything from food security and industry to advanced technology.

Critically, the cooperation extended into the cultural and scientific realms of both nations. Ministers of science, culture, and education traveled back and forth. This was no longer merely about trade; it was the forging of a long-term intellectual alliance. But this tangible, multidimensional success did not go unnoticed. In Washington, alarm solidified into formal counter-strategy. As early as 2012, the US Congress held hearings and drafted legislation specifically to counter Iran’s growing presence and hostile activity in the Western Hemisphere.

A peaceful partnership dedicated to improving lives had been officially designated an adversary in American law. And with that gaze fixed upon it, the dark narrative intensified. Mossad spread false reports of a planned Iranian naval base at a Venezuelan port. In Washington, and bizarrely across the obedient US media, the partnership was no longer framed as a regional challenge, but as an existential security threat on America’s doorstep.

Nevertheless, in 2022, the two countries defiantly signed a 20-year strategic cooperation plan in Tehran, inked by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. Despite the escalating threats, each phase of the relationship built upon the last. It was this shared vision that made practical cooperation possible. It was this unyielding commitment to sovereignty and freedom from domination that ultimately led to the murders in the Caribbean, the bloodshed in Venezuela, and the kidnapping of its president.

But this is not a fleeting alignment. It is a structural alliance, a resilient network that has survived the passing of its founder, the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez. It has persevered and thrived despite political transitions, over two decades of US pressure, and direct congressional action to counter it. These two nations concluded early on that when you are excluded from the system, you do not plead for re-entry. You build an alternative, piece by piece.

But when a new blueprint for independence is being written, what does the old power do? It seeks to erase the architects, and more importantly, the architecture. The attack on Venezuela was a message delivered to every nation seeking independence: “You are not safe. Your sovereignty is conditional. Your resources are forfeit.” The applause from the Zionist regime in response to murder and aggression confirmed the quality of the Venezuelan–Iranian relationship and the identity and nature of the antagonist.

Washington’s War on Iran: The Importance of Defending Information Space

The persistent rumors, often sourced to Israeli regime intelligence, of an Iranian military outpost or a Hezbollah hub in the Caribbean were more than ammunition for a hostile narrative. They revealed the power behind the curtain. To the supremacism of Zionism and its neoconservative allies, who are in fact one and the same, this is the ultimate threat. The very existence of independent nations pursuing their own dignity and honor and demanding equal rights is an existential threat to their domination. For them, such a threat justifies any response.

But the planners of this operation made a critical miscalculation. They believed that by severing the head, the body would collapse. They did not understand the roots. This alliance was the vanguard of a multipolar world and was founded upon a deep-rooted ideological belief in the shared dignity and honor of both peoples. It sought to challenge the architecture of a unipolar order even before the rise of antagonism between the West and Russia or China. It asserted the right of nations to chart their own independent course. This brotherhood helped ignite a fire that cannot be quenched by a dying empire, no matter how violently it lashes out.

The solidarity and comradeship between people of different continents, races, and religions have been a beacon of hope for the post-American era. This alliance was never merely bilateral. It is a cornerstone of a broader constellation within BRICS and the Global South of nations determined to write their own rules, to live on their own terms, and to reject the exhausted logic of colonialism in a new guise.

Anti-colonial sentiment is not a relic in Caracas or Tehran. It is the very fuel of their people’s resolve to resist piracy, looting, and, most importantly, the colonization of the mind. Time will prove that the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro has not cowed the Venezuelan people into submission. Instead, it has made their resistance a global inspiration, illuminating for the entire world the strength of a nation determined to defy an empire.

Across the world, people now witness men and women marching in defiance, refusing to be colonized by Washington. Meanwhile, their allies in Iran, likewise struggling against Zionist terror and aggression, will continue to stand by Venezuela through thick and thin. So, the collective march toward liberation from empire will continue.

This is a transcription of a presentation given by Seyed Mohammad Marandi on the program “Demystifying Iran” broadcast by Al Mayadeen. A Spanish language transcript of Marandi’s presentation is available at Misión Verdad.

(Al Mayadeen)


From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

410
 
 

Caracas, January 21, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Four Venezuelan private banks received a reported US $300 million from an initial US-administered sale of Venezuelan crude.

According to Ecoanalítica, Banesco, BBVA Provincial, Banco Mercantil, and Banco Nacional de Crédito offered a combined $150 million to customers on Tuesday via foreign exchange auctions, with the rest of the funds expected to be made available by the end of the week.

Unofficial reports suggested that private sector importers in the food and healthcare sectors would be given priority. Analyst Alejandro Grisanti stated that the dollars were purchased slightly below 400 bolívars (BsD) per USD. Unlike in prior exchange tables, the banks were not obliged to use the official exchange rate set by the Central Bank, which stands currently at 347 BsD per USD.

The $300 million comprises a portion of the recently announced $500 million sale of Venezuelan crude that had been in storage due to a US naval blockade since early December, with proceeds reportedly deposited in US government-run accounts in Qatar.

Since the January 3 bombings and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, US President Donald Trump and senior officials have vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry and defend the interests of Western energy conglomerates.

The initial agreement involved around 50 million barrels of Venezuelan crude with an estimated return of over $2 billion. Tankers from commodity traders Vitol and Trafigura began moving oil cargoes to Caribbean storage hubs last week.

The allocation of the remaining $200 million from the already executed sales is presently unknown. US officials previously claimed that Venezuela would only be allowed to import from US manufacturers while also floating the possibility of swap deals involving diluents and spare parts for the oil sector and electric grid.

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez confirmed the $300 million received by private banks and identified protecting workers’ incomes as the government’s priority at this moment.

“$300 million has entered the country, to cover the incomes of our workers, protecting their purchasing power from inflation and from foreign exchange instability,” she said during a televised broadcast on Tuesday.

Rodríguez likewise stressed the importance of stabilizing the forex market, with constant devaluations eroding the Venezuelans’ purchasing power. The highly speculative parallel market exchange rate skyrocketed to 900 BsD/USD in early January before expectations of foreign currency injections brought it down under 500.

Amid the initial US-enforced oil deals, the interim Rodríguez administration and National Assembly are moving forward with a reform of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law to expand conditions for foreign investment.

Former President Hugo Chávez overhauled energy legislation in 2001 to establish state control over the oil industry. The Hydrocarbon Law, which was later amended in 2006, mandated that state oil company PDVSA hold majority stakes in all joint ventures and raised royalties and income tax to 33 and 50 percent, respectively.

On Thursday, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez argued that the oil reform is aimed at adapting to the country’s “economic reality” and should not be “a cause for fear or concern.” A first debate on the bill is scheduled for Thursday.

“It is essential to find optimal conditions for investments in so-called green oilfields that are yet to be explored,” he said during a meeting with deputies. “As such, we have to ensure that this foreign investment is protected and profitable.”

The parliamentary leader, who also discussed other upcoming legislative projects, highlighted the so-called Productive Participation Contracts (CPP) as key instruments for oil sector growth that will be included in the reformed legislation.

The CPP models were introduced under the 2020 Anti-Blockade Law. According to industry sources, they are concession-type deals that grant private partners increased control over operations and sales and faster returns on investment through lower taxes and royalty exemptions.

Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been hard hitby US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions, an export embargo, and secondary sanctions, which aimed at strangling the Caribbean nation’s most important revenue source. US officials have announced a selective flexibilization of sanctions in the immediate future to facilitate oil deals.

The recent naval blockade had an immediate impact on crude output, forcing PDVSA to shut down wells as it ran out of storage. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to the blockade as “leverage” to impose conditions on the Venezuelan government.

US forces reportedly seized a seventh oil tanker on Tuesday. According to the US Southern Command, the Liberia-flagged Sagitta had loaded crude in Venezuela and is on the US Treasury’s blacklist. US authorities did not disclose whether they took control of the vessel or if it will turn over its cargo.

The post Venezuelan Banks Receive 300M Ffrom US-Administered Crude Sales, Gov’t Officials Defend Oil Reform appeared first on Venezuelanalysis.


From Venezuelanalysis via This RSS Feed.

411
 
 

This article by Dana Estrada originally appeared in the January 21, 2026 edition of El Sol de México.

Tecomitl, in Milpa Alta, and San Mateo Tlaltenango, in Cuajimalpa, are the neighbourhoods that will receive the most money in Mexico City for neighborhood improvement and the rescue of public spaces, which must be used through neighborhood proposals that are built with Participatory Budgeting in 2026.

Tecomitl will receive 11.6 million pesos and San Mateo Tlaltenango, 5.9 million, a figure that contrasts with what will be received by neighborhoods belonging to the Iztapalapa and Gustavo A. Madero boroughs, which have a larger population.

The Loma de la Palma neighborhood, located in the GAM, will receive 2,201,000 pesos, while the town of San Lorenzo Tezonco, in Iztapalapa, will receive 2,946,000 pesos as participatory budget.

Looking at the ballots at the Participatory Budget Consultation polling station Photo: Adrián Vázquez Archive/El Sol de México

The Finance Secretariat of the Mexico City government published in the Official Gazette that for 2026, the deputies of the local Congress approved 2,128,854,000 pesos for participatory projects that will be voted on May 3rd and will be built by the 16 boroughs.

The Electoral Institute of Mexico City (IECM) explained to El Sol de México that this resource will be used until 2027, once the votes for the Participatory Budget corresponding to this year have been presented.

The budget funds are concentrated in the boroughs of Gustavo A. Madero and Iztapalapa, which together comprise more than 200 neighborhoods, and will therefore receive over 205 million pesos each. Most of the proposed projects include street light replacement, sidewalk and street repairs, park restoration, security modules, rainwater harvesting systems, and more, all aimed at improving residents’ quality of life.

Other municipalities that also receive more than 150 million pesos for participatory budgeting are: Cuauhtémoc with 178 million 574 thousand pesos; Álvaro Obregon with 158 million 545 thousand; and Venustiano Carranza with 154 million 342 thousand pesos; districts that have between 60 and 200 neighborhoods.

Cuajimalpa encompasses neighborhoods with budgets of 5,952,000 pesos for San Pedro Cuajimalpa, 5,583,000 pesos for the Santa Fe corridor, and 3,582,000 pesos for Bosques de las Lomas. This borough has a total budget of nearly 100 million pesos.

The districts with the smallest budgets, despite their large territorial extension, are Tláhuac, with 98 million 172 thousand pesos; Magdalena Contreras, with 95 million 306 thousand pesos; and Milpa Alta, with 82 million 486 thousand pesos.

As part of the work prior to the participatory budget vote, the General Council of the Electoral Institute of Mexico City approved the designs of the documentation, electoral and consultative ballots that will be used in the consultation of said budget.

Each ballot includes features to prevent unintentional invalidation when marking it. These include three new colors, and each ballot will also have unique graphics such as margins, corners, and illustrations.

The post Mexico City Approves Participatory Budget of $114 Million USD appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

412
 
 

The Foreign Minister of Venezuela, Yván Gil, criticized Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, saying he has once again displayed “his profound ignorance of international law and the basic norms that govern coexistence between nations.”

In response to Milei’s recent statements, Gil indicated on Telegram that the Argentine president’s words “are not only delusional,” but also constitute a direct attack on the principle of sovereignty and the Zone of Peace in Latin America and the Caribbean.

“We don’t know if he is acting out of ignorance, incapacity, or habit, but we are certain that he is trying to hide his own internal failures,” the chancellor stated.

These reactions come after the Argentine president expressed support for the US military intervention against Venezuela. “We value the decision and the determination shown by the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump, and by his entire government,” he said, referring to the actions taken in Venezuela.

The foreign minister added that Milei’s irresponsibility does not represent a legitimate foreign policy and called it “a simple absurdity.”

Soldiers Recall Venezuela’s Heroic Resistance Against US Invasion and Trump’s Cowardly Attack

After the US bombing of Venezuela in the early hours of January 3—which left dead and wounded among military personnel and civilians—President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were kidnapped.

In response to these events, Venezuela has received support from various nations that condemn the attacks as violations of national sovereignty, the Charter of the United Nations, and international law. The allied international community demands the immediate release of the presidential couple, currently being held in the United States.

(Últimas Noticias) by Karla Patiño

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/JB/SH


From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

413
 
 

President of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, announced that details of the proposed reform to the Hydrocarbons Law cannot be released at this time. He affirmed, however, that the Productive Participation Contracts implemented through the Anti-Blockade Law were key to increasing the country’s oil production during the sanctions, and therefore the government seeks to incorporate them into this new version of the law.

“There is a model that has proven extremely successful in increasing oil production,” he said. “When Venezuela was neither sanctioned nor blockaded, it was relatively easy to attract foreign investment and partnerships with national companies for the exploitation of what are called mature fields—those with prior investment—to begin production. But it is essential to find the optimal conditions to attract investors for what are called green fields: those that remain unexploited and therefore require a much larger investment. To achieve this, it is necessary to ensure that this foreign investment is protected and profitable. That is why the Productive Participation Contract mechanism was tested—a key factor in increasing oil production.” He emphasized the establishment of the Hydrocarbons Law as a strategic pillar of national development.

The CPPs (Productive Participation Contracts) are oil agreements between PDVSA and private or foreign companies to increase crude oil production, allowing greater operational control and investment recovery, while PDVSA supervises them under the Anti-Blockade Law to circumvent sanctions.

Rodríguez argued that the responsible and sovereign exploitation of oil should translate directly into social investments: the construction of schools, hospitals, technology infrastructure, healthcare, housing for young people, and other essential public services. This vision links the country’s hydrocarbon wealth to the fulfillment of fundamental rights, reaffirming the state’s role as guarantor of the equitable redistribution of oil revenue.

Venezuela: Acting President Rodríguez Secures US $300 Million in Oil Revenue to Shield Workers From Inflation (+Exchange Rate)

“Oil underground is useless; it must be converted into schools, housing for young people, healthcare, roads, and highways,” he told the media upon leaving the Parliament’s Advisory Commission, where members discussed the analysis, evaluation, monitoring, and implementation of the 2026-2027 Legislative Agenda in accordance with Article 36 of the Internal Regulations and Debates.

The Speaker of Parliament noted that laws always require two phases: the first debate focuses on the explanatory memorandum, its scope, and its impact on the population; this is followed by a process of public consultation with communities; and finally, the legal text is discussed article by article in the second debate. Therefore, it is not yet possible to disclose specific details—beyond the inclusion of new elements such as the CPPs and new trade relationships aimed at increasing production.

(Últimas Noticias) by Odra Farnetano

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/JB/SH


From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

414
 
 

This article originally appeared in the January 21, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

US President Donald Trump reiterated yesterday that his military will begin ground operations to combat drug trafficking organizations, and insisted that the Gulf of Mexico should be called the “Gulf of America,” even jokingly suggesting that he considered naming it the “Trump Gulf.”

“We have designated the Tren de Aragua, MS-13, and the Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. We have hit them hard. They have seen what we have done on the water. We are beginning to do it on land,” the tycoon stated at a conference held to mark the first anniversary of his return to the White House.

On another topic, Trump said, “Why is it called the Gulf of Mexico? It should be the Gulf of America… I was going to call it the Gulf of Trump, but I thought they’d kill me if I did. I wanted to do it, but I decided against it. Just kidding… it sounds good, though. Maybe we could do it… It’s not too late.”

He stated that “for the first time in half a century” the United States is experiencing changes in migration trends and that “more people are leaving than entering.”

Trump also asserted that he has no interest in speaking with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was captured and taken to New York amid bombing raids by U.S. forces in Venezuela on January 3. “I think my lawyers wouldn’t be happy.”

He indicated that he would “love” to involve opposition leader María Corina Machado in the transition in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and described her as “an incredibly kind woman.”

When asked how far he would go in his attempt to seize Greenland, Trump simply replied: “They’ll see.”

Regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), he stated: “I believe we will find a solution that will leave NATO very satisfied, and us as well,” and reiterated that the alliance without Washington’s support “is not very strong.”

He announced that he would not attend a G-7 meeting this Thursday in Paris, to which he was invited by French President Emmanuel Macron, because Macron “will not be in power much longer,” and boasted that his proposed Peace Council for Gaza “could replace” the United Nations, which, he asserted, “has not been very helpful.”

“They should have resolved all the wars that I resolved. I never called on them. I never even thought about it. They should be able to resolve those wars, and they don’t,” the president asserted.

The post Trump Insists Land Strikes Against Drug Traffickers Coming Soon, Rambles About Gulf of Mexico appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

415
 
 

By Llanisca Lugo González  –  Jan 15, 2026

In these early days of January, we have had to witness what hoped never to see, though it comes as no surprise: the kidnapping of a legitimate sitting president through a criminal act of aggression by the United States.

The initial bewilderment that followed in the first hours after the US military operation has given way to actions of denunciation and expressions of solidarity worldwide. These actions are a result of serious assessment in the face of an overwhelming flow of information (some accurate, others misleading or entirely false) that circulated across social media and the formal media.

Venezuela’s state and government remain intact: the National Assembly convened on January 5 and Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as acting president.

However, dawn has not yet broken over the battlefield.

There is no room for naïve optimism. The fires still burn. The lessons are not yet learned.

The US military assault on Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and National Assembly Deputy Cilia Flores was no “surgical strike”. There is nothing surgical about deploying 150 aircraft, Delta Force units and then the entire ensemble of the US Southern Command (its electronic warfare systems capable of shutting down power and communications). This operation destroyed Venezuela’s military defense systems and other military installations across the country, as well as civilian structures (including warehouses holding medical equipment). Over a hundred Venezuelans were killed resisting the abduction, facing a military equipped with weapons systems funded by more than USD 1 trillion a year.

This is not only a display of power but also of desperation. The final resort after 25 years of failed operations to enact regime change in Venezuela. It is meant as a global warning: a message of force and issued by a power that has been unable to break Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution and seize control of the world’s largest oil reserves before time runs out. There is nothing new in this posture. It follows an all-to familiar script from a long history of US interventions: the coups against Jacobo Árbenz of Guatemala in 1954, João Goulart of Brazil in 1964, Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic in 1965, Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, and the broader coordinated terror campaign against the entire Left in Latin America through Operation Condor from 1975. Chávez knew this history. Maduro does as well. For a country with strategic resources, nothing is clearer than the need to defend sovereignty (a lesson that is well known across the Global South).

With this criminal operation (one that violates all the norms of what remains of so-called “international law”) the United States faces a crisis of legitimacy, even among its own allies. The face of imperialism is laid bare: the assertion of dominance over all others, in any hemisphere. Propelled by an overwhelming military force and the capacity to strike anywhere in the world, imperialism today goes beyond the Monroe Doctrine. Donald Trump and his ilk want everything and want to lose nothing. Here lies his fragility.

Trump has been forced to confront the absolute failure of the Venezuelan Right. He has withdrawn the fictitiousness of their right to rule and instead has had to accept the continuity of the Chavista leadership. Just as they failed to impose Juan Guaidó, they have now failed with Maria Corina Machado. To place either of them in the Miraflores presidential palace, the US troops would have had to climb the hills around the city and fight street by street against the resistance of a population unified by its hatred of a return to the oligarchy.

Faced with such US aggression, one cannot believe in a path of diplomacy necessarily based on the recognition of sovereign and equal states. The United States interprets the willingness to dialogue of our nations as signs of weakness and pounces like a starving beast. We must never forget this. Nor should we forget that they lie.

The battlefield has a military component, in which the United States have carried out a mission successfully. But it has other components (economic, political, ethical, symbolic fronts) that are contested. The protagonist of these dimensions is the Venezuelan people, mobilizing their memory, their recent history, their dignity, their victories, and their protagonism. The people mobilized under Chávez’s enduring gaze.

Soldiers Recall Venezuela’s Heroic Resistance Against US Invasion and Trump’s Cowardly Attack

The role of Cuba
For Cuba, blockaded for more than 60 years and accused by the same empire of being a state sponsor of terrorism and a failed state, there is no other path than to deepen anti-imperialism.

The ties between Cuba and Venezuela were born from the admiration José Martí (1853-1895) had for Simón Bolívar (1783-1830)—that traveler who wept before the statue of the Liberator. These ties were nourished by the love between Chávez and Fidel a century later. These are not mere commercial ties forged out of the need to survive amid a blockade, though sovereign cooperation would be entirely legitimate. They are bonds of fraternity, ties between siblings in the pursuit of a socialist path, nourished by faces of the people, by thousands of Cuban professionals who have served in Venezuela, and by stories of affection, loyalty, and sacrifice born over decades.

Our countries have sustained economic relations based on trust and mutual commitment, on the exchange of oil for medical and educational services, on compensated trade relations with preferential agreements. These exchanges have diminished in recent years due to unilateral sanctions and the tightening of the blockade. A naval blockade on Venezuelan oil could mean new difficulties for that exchange, but what Cubans are talking about these days is not national economic interests, but imperialism, revolution, internationalism, commitment — words we must bring into our lives as a compass for everyday practice.

The Left is living through a moment of definition and must take its rightful place in history at this hour. We have failed to advance regional integration. We have failed to strengthen regional sovereignty by pooling our resources and strengths. We have failed to deepen our understanding of one another’s struggles and the differences in our national realities. And in the face of this, there has always been an empire (today more voracious and soulless, but the same as ever).

Cubans condemn the US military aggression against Venezuela and the threats against the countries of the region, and we firmly condemn the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores and demand their release. In defending the Proclamation approved at the II CELAC Summit that recognizes our region as a Zone of Peace, we defend peace with sincerity. Our anger today does not translate into hatred, but carries the history of the victory over mercenary troops at Girón, the October Crisis, resistance to acts of state terrorism and to a blockade that was already 40 years old when formal fraternal relations with Venezuela began.

Today, the Cuban people mourn 32 sons of a country that only wants to work to live better along the path it has chosen. They are so aware that no people can confront the threats now being launched against Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland alone. Only united can we stop a powerful fascist who has no morality or ethics other than dispossession and unpunished criminality, who feels entitled to every part of the world that interests them and endowed with the right and the power to destroy the part of the world they can do without.

Llanisca Lugo González is a member of the No Cold War Collective, is a researcher and the Antonio Gramsci Chair at the Instituto Juan Marinello, Havana, Cuba. She is a Deputy in the National Assembly of Cuba.

(People’s Dispatch)


From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

416
 
 

In episode 92 of Soberanía, we begin by looking at how much can change in just two weeks, using Mark Carney’s comments at the World Economic Forum as a starting point to discuss shifting economic and political signals and what they mean for Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum. The conversation then turns to Mexico’s decision to expel criminal figures and what that action reveals about US pressure on Mexico. In the third segment, we examine Mexico’s push toward universal health care, focusing specifically on the rollout of new Mexican health cards and what they mean in practice for access and coverage. Finally, in Loser and Haters we pick on the Mexican opposition.


The post World Cries Out “Sovereignty, Not Subordination” Soberanía 92 appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

417
 
 

This article originally appeared in the January 21, 2026 edition of Sin Embargo.

Mexico City. President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo stated that Mexico will limit the entry of US military aircraft, even when they are related to training activities, considering it preferable that Mexican aircraft be in charge of transporting personnel who go to train abroad.

When asked by a journalist why a U.S. military plane landed at Toluca International Airport and not at another base, the President explained that the decision was made by the National Security Council, which must approve this type of training and bilateral agreements.

The head of the Executive Branch emphasized that these are not individual decisions of one institution, but rather decisions made by different branches of the State, and reiterated that the landing in Toluca did not violate any law nor did it require authorization from the Senate, since that body only intervenes when foreign troops or trainers enter the country.

The post Mexico To Limit Entry of US Military Aircraft appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

418
 
 

By Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!  –  Jan 7, 2026

The Guardian is lying to us about Venezuela. This so called “independent” media outlet which professes “fearless investigative journalism—giving a voice to the powerless and holding power to account” has once again proved it does nothing of the sort. It repeats the same lies that have legitimised the US bombing of Caracas and kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, National Assembly deputy, Cilia Flores.

Lie 1: Maduro is a dictator
Julian Borger, a Guardian “senior analyst” penned on 3 January “Maduro is a dictator who has run an authoritarian state since 2013,” rejecting the results of all three (2013, 2018 and 2024) presidential elections that Maduro has stood in. The US has notoriously refused to recognise election results from Venezuela since 2013, Borger is simply parroting US claims.

In each election Maduro won over 6 million votes and over 50% of the vote share (2013 – 51%, 7.5 million votes. 2018 – 67%, 6.2 million votes. 2024 – 51% 6.4, million votes). Each election has been observed by hundreds of electoral observers. 2024’s election was targeted by a cyber-attack which delayed the election results, bolstering claims of fraud, however, the US-based National Lawyers Guild refuted this in their detailed observers report. Last year, Venezuela held elections for the National Assembly, Governorships and Legislative council in which large sections of the opposition participated. Maduro’s Great Patriotic Pole coalition won 82% of the votes for National Assembly deputies and 23 out of 24 governorships, again illustrating widespread electoral support. In contrast, the prominent opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado is thoroughly discredited within Venezuela, a poll last month showed 89% disapproved of her and even Trump admits she does not have enough popular support to run the country.

Moreover, Venezuela has a system of direct participatory democracy that is never reported on. There are over 5,300 communes, each made up of thousands of residents. In 2025 there were four nationwide consultations where communes proposed and voted on community projects, each commune receiving $10,000 to execute the winning project. 20,000 local projects were completed in this manner; direct participatory management of state funds for community use—hardly the hallmark of a dictator. Meanwhile, 8 million volunteers have joined the people’s Bolivarian militias, armed and drilled in preparation for a US invasion. If the majority of Venezuelans had wanted to overthrow Maduro, they would have done it themselves!

Lie 2: Maduro is a drug kingpin
In its news feed on 5 January, the Guardian repeated US prosecution allegations against Maduro, without presenting any facts. Trump has alleged that Maduro is the head of the Cartel de los soles. Even US intelligence admitted the group does not exist. Moreover, the United Nations office on drugs and crime’s 2025 report declared Venezuela as a territory free of coca leaf cultivation, marijuana and cocaine processing, reporting that less than 5% of the region’s cocaine is transited through Venezuela. The same report ranks Venezuela 11th in the world for drug seizures, highlighting its robust anti-narcotics programme.

Lie 3: Venezuela is a failed state
The “Guardian view” on 4 January claimed that “Venezuelans have endured a repressive, kleptocratic and incompetent regime.” It’s no secret that Venezuela has lived through hyperinflation and scarcity, however the Guardian completely fails to mention the US oil blockade and 1000 unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) that by 2021 had decimated export revenue to less than 1% of its pre-sanctions level, resulted in the deaths of 40,000 Venezuelan’s in 2018 according to a Centre for Economic and Policy Research report.

Nor did the Guardian mention that despite this, Venezuela under Maduro built 5 million units of social housing, increased domestic food production to cover over 90% of basic food needs and distributed free and subsidised food bags providing a lifeline to millions of working class Venezuelans.

Meanwhile in food bank Britain, one of the richest nations in the world, the Guardian itself reported that 9 million people are vulnerable to dependence on food banks run, not by the state, but by charity in 2024.

Lie 4: Venezuelans are celebrating the kidnapping of Maduro
In several articles, the Guardian reports that Venezuelans in Britain, the US and Europe are celebrating. Yet huge protests have erupted in New York, in Washington, in London, featuring Venezuelans who have spoken out against the illegal US bombing, demanding the release of President Maduro. The Guardian has completely ignored these voices, only quoting and giving airspace to opposition aligned Venezuelans who back Trump’s regime change narrative.

Reporting from Bogotá and Caracas, Guardian correspondents Tom Phillips and Patricia Torres have refused to report on the mass protests taking place in Venezuela. Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in all regional capitals demanding the return of Maduro and rejecting US war on Venezuela. 50,000 filled Caracas’ Avenida Urdaneta on 4 January. They have been made completely invisible by the Guardian because this does not fit with their narrative of Venezuelans celebrating the downfall of an unpopular dictatorship.

President Nicolás Maduro is Not a Dictator

Lie 5: Acting President Delcy Rodriguez is aligned with Donald Trump
Since 5 January the Guardian has insisted that Delcy Rodríguez, former vice president who is now acting president, has struck a “conciliatory tone” with the US, insinuating that she will not defend the Bolivarian Revolution. This psy-op is aimed at dividing the solidarity movement. Contradicting such notions, on 3 January, Rodríguez called people to the streets declaring “we will never again be slaves, we will never again be colonies of any empire.” On 5 January, assuming the presidency she emphasised, “I come here as executive vice president to the constitutional president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro Moros, to take the oath of office. I come with sorrow for the suffering inflicted upon the Venezuelan people following an illegitimate military aggression against our homeland…but I also come with honour to swear, in the name of all Venezuelans, by our liberator father Simon Bolivar…whose liberating blood runs through the veins of Venezuelans.”

In offering dialogue with the US, Rodríguez is simply following in the footsteps of Maduro who repeatedly called for dialogue against the US escalation of war. Rodríguez has been part of Venezuela’s government since 2003, first in the administration of Hugo Chávez, then in Maduro’s administration. She is the child of Jorge Antonio Rodríguez, a leftist guerrilla tortured and killed by US linked intelligence services in 1976. She is not about to roll over and hand Venezuela to Trump and neither will the millions of Venezuelans committed to the Bolivarian revolution.

The Guardian is a mouthpiece for imperialist interests in Venezuela. As Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! has consistently exposed, it has long manufactured consent for destabilisation, coup attempts, sanctions and now war against Venezuela. The Guardian attacks any national struggle that takes an explicitly anti imperialist stance, from Cuba to Nicaragua, Burkina Faso to Yemen. Whilst balking at Trump’s threats to Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, the Guardian enables the US war on self-determination in Latin America; a thoroughly racist, chauvinist stance that must be protested for what it is—propaganda for war.

(Revolutionary Communist Group)


From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

419
 
 

This article by Luis M. López originally appeared in Publimetro on January 18, 2026.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo led the presentation on Sunday of progress on the Justice Plan for the Chichimeca and Otomí peoples of Guanajuato and the semi-desert of Querétaro, an event in which she delivered the agrarian documentation that gives legal life to the ejido Nuevo Cruz del Palmar, thus ending a territorial conflict of more than eight decades between the communities of La Petaca and Cruz del Palmar.

“This is a peaceful resolution to a historical conflict, and a debt that the Mexican State owed to these communities,” President Claudia Sheinbaum said.

During her message, the President described the creation of the new agrarian community as a “peaceful resolution of a historical conflict,” and linked it to the constitutional recognition of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples approved in 2024, within the framework of the so-called fourth transformation.

“A new community is born here, with legal certainty over its land, after more than 80 years of waiting,” said President Claudia Sheinbaum.

At the event, held in the community of La Cruz del Palmar, in Guanajuato, the president stressed that the so-called justice plans cannot remain only on paper, but must be translated into concrete actions for Indigenous peoples.

President Sheinbaum declared, “That is why justice plans are made, because it is not enough for it to remain in the letter of the Constitution; the government has the obligation to do justice for the people.”

She explained that this justice is built by working directly with the communities, recognizing them, and jointly deciding what they need, the first step being the recognition of their ancestral land. “That is why we are so pleased to be delivering this document today,” he said, referring to the agrarian file that gives legal standing to the new ejido.

At the event, Sheinbaum presented the ejido commissioner with the basic file and the current register of ejido members, documents that formalize the legal existence of the Nuevo Cruz del Palmar ejido, which has an area of ​​569 hectares.

In an interview on site for Publimetro, Sabino Ramírez Infante, a resident and historian of Cruz del Palmar, recounted that the origin of the problem dates back to the agrarian reform era, when a portion of the land was left unregulated.

Sabino Ramírez Infante, a resident and historian of Cruz del Palmar

“When we tried to move forward, representatives linked to the ejido process were murdered more than eight decades ago. We waited 87 years for this great moment,” he said, referring to the creation of the new ejido.

The presidium included federal and state authorities, among them Edna Vega , head of the Ministry of Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development (SEDATU), and Adelfo Regino, director of the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (INPI), as well as traditional authorities from Indigenous communities in the region.

Investment & Pending Issues of the Plan

The INPI reported that the Justice Plan has accumulated more than 700 million pesos in investment, with actions in areas such as territory, sacred sites, well-being and infrastructure, in addition to agreements for the installation of community houses for Indigenous languages ​​and technical tours for artisan paths.

With the delivery of the agrarian file, federal authorities brought to a close one of the oldest territorial conflicts in the region and formalized the birth of a new community with full legal recognition.


The post President Sheinbaum Formalizes New Guanajuato Ejido, Closing Agrarian Conflict of More Than 80 years appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

420
 
 

Online users have reacted sharply on X after the Canadian prime minister addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, openly acknowledging the breakdown of the so-called US-led “rules-based order.”


From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

421
 
 

Canada’s prime minister tells the World Economic Forum that the so-called US-led global order is breaking down, as Washington turns power, trade, and coercion into tools of domination.


From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

422
 
 

Corporate media have deployed a lexicon of legitimation in their coverage of the deadly US invasion of Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, along with his wife and fellow politician Cilia Flores. Major news outlets have routinely described these events using words like “capture” (New York Times1/3/26) or “arrest” (BBC1/3/26), which presents them as a matter of enforcing the law against fugitives or criminals, and carries the built-in but false assumption that the US had the right or even duty to conduct its operation in the first place.

The ludicrous premise is that any time an arrest warrant is issued somewhere in the United States, the US has the right to do anything, anywhere in the world, in pursuit of the subject—including bombing another country, invading it, killing its citizens, and spiriting away its president and first lady. Cornell Law School professor Maggie Gardner (Transnational Litigation Blog1/5/26) rebuked the idea that the US merely enforced the law in Venezuela, pointing out (emphasis in original):

Under customary international law, a sovereign can only exercise enforcement jurisdiction in the territory of another sovereign if it has that sovereign’s consent. This hard line limiting enforcement powers to a sovereign’s own territory is clear and well-established.

Venezuela, of course, didn’t consent to being bombed, or to having Maduro and Flores taken from the country at gunpoint. Accordingly, what happened in Caracas is best understood not as the US enforcing the law, but as the US breaking international law. It’s misleading, therefore, to use language like “capture” and “arrest,” which evoke the US upholding the law, to describe blowtorch-wielding, heavily armed US forces taking Maduro and Flores prisoner in the middle of the night (BBC1/4/26).

‘Abducted, so to speak’

I used the news aggregator Factiva to examine New York TimesWall Street Journal and Washington Post coverage from January 3 through January 5, the day of the US’s attack on Venezuela and the first two days after these developments. The papers published a combined 223 pieces that featured Maduro’s name, and 166 of these (74%) used the term “capture” or a form of it, such as “captured” or “capturing.” Sixty of these pieces, or 27%, included the word “arrest” or variations on the term, like “arrested” or “arresting.”

“Abduction” or “kidnapping”—synonyms that mean to take someone away unlawfully and by force—are far more suitable words for what the US did to Maduro and Flores. Only two pieces in the Post and one in the Journal used any form of “abduct” (such as “abduction”) in any of the articles that refer to Maduro—1% of the combined total articles. In each case, the term appears in quotation marks. The Times ran no pieces in which the word appeared.

The Post (1/3/26) shared a perplexing perspective from Geoffrey Corn—head of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, and a former top legal adviser to the US Army—who said that the US Supreme Court has been clear since the late 19th century that “you can’t claim that you were abducted and therefore the court should not be allowed to assert authority over you.” The article went on:

“Maduro is not going to be able to avoid being brought to trial because he was abducted, so to speak, even if he can establish it violated international law,” Corn said, adding that in his view, the administration’s overnight military operation lacked any “plausible legal basis.”

So, despite Corn’s view that the US attack was illegal, he couldn’t bring himself to present Maduro’s abduction as literal rather than figurative.

That article, as well another in the Post (1/3/26) and one in the Wall Street Journal (1/5/26), quoted Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner:

If the United States asserts the right to use military force to invade and capture foreign leaders it accuses of criminal conduct, what prevents China from claiming the same authority over Taiwan’s leadership? What stops Vladimir Putin from asserting a similar justification to abduct Ukraine’s president?

Even as Warner is skeptical about the US’s actions in Venezuela, he still uses the language of “capture” for Maduro, while using “abduct” for a hypothetical scenario in which the official enemy Putin carries out a parallel crime. None of the articles that included Warner’s quote  commented on this linguistic inconsistency.

The word “abduct” was never used in the voice of a reporter from any of these papers to describe what the US had done.

‘It’s not a bad term’

Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself (New York Times1/5/26), say that he was “kidnapped” by the US. They’re not the only ones. On Democracy Now! (1/3/26), Venezuelan journalist Andreína Chávez and US-based Venezuelan historian Miguel Tinker Salas both used that word to characterize what the US did to Maduro and Flores.

Canada’s national broadcaster, the CBC (1/5/26), regarded the idea that Maduro was “kidnapped” as at least meriting serious discussion. Co-anchor Andrew Chang asked:

Did the US military just kidnap Nicholas Maduro?… “Kidnap” is a loaded word because it implies illegality. Maybe a more neutral way of describing Maduro’s capture is as an “abduction,” but the US government calls it an “arrest.”…

This isn’t some nerdy question about semantics. It’s a question about law, and whether the US has the legal right to extract world leaders from their homes, and maybe even whether other countries might have that right, too.

Notably, when Trump was told that Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez said it was a “kidnapping,” he didn’t push back, saying, “It’s not a bad term.”

However, the only times “kidnap” appeared in the TimesJournal or Post in relation to Maduro and Flores—in 10 pieces, or 4% of the coverage—came when that term was attributed to representatives of the Venezuelan state. Suggesting to readers that a government that has been demonized in US media for decades is the only source that regards Maduro and Flores as having been “kidnapped” is tantamount to suggesting that no credible sources take that position.

The three papers combined to run zero articles treating as an objective fact the view that America “abducted” or “kidnapped” a sitting head of state in defiance of international law, while they regularly used “captured” and “arrested” outside of quotation marks, as if those word choices are merely flat descriptions of reality.

ICE also ‘arrests’

These linguistic choices matter. “Capture” and “arrest” paint Trump, Delta Force and the CIA as righteous heroes protecting their country—as well as Venezuela and the rest of the world—from the villainous Maduros. “Abduct” and “kidnap” morally invert the good guy and bad guy roles, and would portray US actors as the wrongdoers.

This particular form of word play is part of a pattern for corporate media under this Trump administration. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) round-ups of migrants in the United States have featured what can most accurately be described as abductions or kidnappings of people—off the streets, at courts, in workplaces and elsewhere—by armed, masked and unaccountable agents, into unmarked vehicles. It’s little surprise, then, that immigration lawyers, members of Congress, and law professors (LA Times10/21/25), among others, routinely use the word “abduct” to describe these events.

And describing ICE’s practices as “kidnappings” isn’t some fringe view. Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.) uses the word (Independent12/5/25), as does Rolling Stone editor Tim Dickinson (7/2/25), and the academic and author Natasha Lennard of the New School for Social Research in New York (Intercept7/1/25). ICE’s victims (Mother Jones7/18/27NPR7/27/25) and their families (Guardian4/15/256/10/256/26/25) frequently describe their ordeal in such terms.

Yet corporate media eschew such language for the same sanitized “arrest” or “capture” language they employed for Maduro and Flores. When I used Factiva to pair “ICE” with the words “abduct” or “kidnap,” just two articles turned up that included the perspective that ICE “abducts” people (New York Times7/13/25Washington Post12/3/25), both attributed to critical sources. Five (2%) included a version of the word “kidnap,” all in quotation marks.

Three of these quotes were from the much-maligned Venezuelan government (New York Times3/18/2511/25/25Washington Post5/4/25), one came from a man whose father and daughter-in-law had been detained by ICE (Washington Post3/21/25), and another from a member of the Chicago Board of Education (New York Times10/22/25).

The language is freighted in the same way, whether it is migrants under attack from US jackboots, or those same forces unleashed against socialist politicians in Global South countries seeking to escape imperial domination.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: FAIR

The post Labeling Kidnapping a ‘Capture,’ Media Legitimate Violation of International Law appeared first on Venezuelanalysis.


From Venezuelanalysis via This RSS Feed.

423
5
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by rss@news.abolish.capital to c/latam@news.abolish.capital
 
 

The US invasion of Venezuela on January 3 and the subsequent abduction of President Maduro marked a significant shift in American foreign policy, reflecting a return to the interventionist tactics of the past.


From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

424
4
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by rss@news.abolish.capital to c/latam@news.abolish.capital
 
 

The US invasion of Venezuela on January 3 and the subsequent abduction of President Maduro marked a significant shift in American foreign policy, reflecting a return to the interventionist tactics of the past.


From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

425
3
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by rss@news.abolish.capital to c/latam@news.abolish.capital
 
 

The US invasion of Venezuela on January 3 and the subsequent abduction of President Maduro marked a significant shift in American foreign policy, reflecting a return to the interventionist tactics of the past.


From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

view more: ‹ prev next ›