TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Attempts to oust Venezuela's leader show 'expanding democracy' is just rhetoric

Attempts to oust Venezuela's leader show 'expanding democracy' is just rhetoric

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/co...zuela_edit.html

quote:

Attempts to oust Venezuela's leader show 'expanding democracy' is just rhetoric Robert Jensen, LOCAL CONTRIBUTOR Saturday, August 14, 2004 Imagine the scandal if a foreign government had for years funneled millions of dollars to political groups in the United States in an attempt to affect the outcome of a U.S. election. Even worse, what if some of the groups that received money had been involved in a failed coup attempt against a democratically elected U.S. president? Would the U.S. public not have a right to be outraged at the attempt to manipulate our political process? Of course we would � which is why the people of Venezuela have a right to be outraged at the U.S. government's ongoing attempts to meddle in the electoral process in Venezuela. On Sunday, Venezuelans will go to the polls for a referendum on the recall of President Hugo Chavez. Polls show Chavez running 8 to 31 percentage points ahead. But whatever the result, Bush administration actions in Venezuela should alert the U.S. public that the commitment to "expanding democracy" we hear so much about is largely rhetorical cover for the typical U.S. interference in the politics of nations in Latin America � and around the world. The vehicle for this meddling in Venezuela is the National Endowment for Democracy, which calls itself "a private, nonprofit organization" but is funded by U.S. taxpayers. Its self-described mission is "to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts." In the case of Venezuela, "strengthening democratic institutions" has meant financing groups that helped carry out the failed coup attempt against Chavez in April 2002. Coup leaders representing the traditional oligarchy in Venezuela, and their supporters in the U.S. government, saw a "problem": Chavez is genuinely interested in a fairer distribution of wealth and refuses to subordinate his country to U.S. policy. Their "solution" was a coup that lasted for 48 hours, during which an illegal decree installed a businessman as president and dissolved the National Assembly and the Supreme Court. The United States quickly backed the coup, until loyal officers and civilian groups restored Chavez to office. In the continued quest to promote "democracy," the NED kept funding some of those same opposition figures as they shifted to a strategy of work stoppages and lockouts aimed at crippling the country's vital oil industry. When that failed to dislodge Chavez, they finally took up a legal route, the recall election. Documents regarding NED funding obtained through the Freedom of Information Act are available online at www.venezuelafoia.info. Whatever objections U.S. officials might have to the Venezuelan president's policies, it is clear the attempts to push Chavez from power have nothing to do with the charge that he is an authoritarian president (or "quasi-authoritarian," as one U.S. newspaper described him in an editorial, or perhaps a "quasi-editorial"). Since his 1998 election, Chavez's real "crimes" have been not just consistently speaking out against the unjust distribution of resources in his country but taking tangible steps to help the poor, such as literacy programs and community-based health clinics. Unlike so many U.S.-backed leaders in Latin America over the years, Chavez has respected freedom of speech and an open political process. Most of the private media outlets, in fact, are rabidly anti-Chavez, representing the interests of the Venezuelan elite. Those television stations remain on the air. Chavez has consistently stated he would abide by the results of the referendum, which the opposition leadership refuses to do. The fact is that Chavez has acted in a less repressive manner than any prior Venezuelan president. And for all this, Chavez has been demonized by the Bush administration, a strategy that John Kerry seems determined to mimic. This suggests that the current fashionable rhetoric among U.S. policymakers about supporting democracy around the world is � as it was during the Cold War � empty rhetoric. If democratic elections put into power leaders willing to back U.S. policy, then all is well. If people around the world reject U.S.-backed "leaders," then those people are likely to get some timely instruction in democracy � Washington style. Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas. He can be reached at [email protected].

its sad really. i hope he wins. hes done alot of good in that country for the poor. i just hope he doesnt get too extreme

quote:

Originally posted by discojoe its sad really. i hope he wins. hes done alot of good in that country for the poor. i just hope he doesnt get too extreme

WTF?!?! He must goo!! He's a Castro friend, and it's placed Venezuela on the verge of poverty. HE's another Communist, waiting to make Venezuela the next Cuba..

like it or not the USA has the right policy against Chavez.

True it might be undemocratic, but most of Latin America's tyrannts started from democracy.



I wish the USA would not meddle in other nations affairs simply because it does not need to. And could use a break for the slack. Who cares if a madman takes control of hundreds of one of Latin America's most promising nations to the determent of millions?? Somehow that would probably be the USA's fault too

However, if you are asking for the USA to do the right course of action then it is. Although Hugo has been 'democratically' elected, he has made a mockery of the electoral system with use of violence, intimidation, and closing the polls. He's not the first, Saddam was also a 'democractically' elected president the USA had to remove...

oh I might add now that I read the article which is written by Robert Jensen .

Just a tad, to let you know this 'professor' character: He is a terrorist apologist, who condoned the Sept 11th attack right after it happened, and was vehemently opposed to the USA invasion of Afghanistan and its pursuit against Al Q and the Taliban.

He is a disgrace to my university, but has kept his tenured position regardless as he has not violated any terms, but is just an idiot (which isn't enough to get your tenure revoked ).

Sum it up, he's more of a left-wing extremist than Michael Moore.

With that disclaimer it should not be hard to understand why he is apologizing for the communist and/or radical left-wing leadership of Chavez.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX HE's another Communist, waiting to make Venezuela the next Cuba..

sigh... i forgot about the world's biggest threat to freedom. It certainly is our duty to prevent the spread of communism. The USSR is dead, you're 15 years behind buddy.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus True it might be undemocratic, but most of Latin America's tyrannts started from democracy.

what the hell does that mean? So who were Latin America's biggest tyrants?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I wish the USA would not meddle in other nations affairs simply because it does not need to.

Exactly. This would be a reason why they have the WRONG policy against Chavez.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus And could use a break for the slack. Who cares if a madman takes control of hundreds of one of Latin America's most promising nations to the determent of millions?? Somehow that would probably be the USA's fault too

yes it would be. There is very well documented evidence CIA and various United States governments were directly responsible for placing brutal puppet dictatorships in latin america over the course of the cold war.

One example is the Anastasio Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua who, during his regime was responsible for more deaths per capita than Americans in their civil war and all the American deaths of the 20th century combined. It is very well documented he was heavily supported by the United States throughout much of the 1970s. The United States continued to supply weapons, training and help with propaganda in Nicaragua to suffocate the left wing movements even throughout the 1990s.

General Pinochet was another dictator in Latin America very commonly believed was heavily supported by the United States. While chileans views of Pinochet vary greatly as he did clearly significantly improve the country's economy throughout his rule, theres little doubt of some of his brutal attrocities and crimes against humanity that many Chileans still have a very difficult time talking about.

The united states has had a heavy hand in fostering dictatorships in many more countries over the cold war decades including strong support in Brazil, Guatemala, Haiti and Colombia (I could go on) that have resulted in devastating, methodical crimes against humanity far more brutal than what you think has happened in Venezuela

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Although Hugo has been 'democratically' elected, he has made a mockery of the electoral system with use of violence, intimidation, and closing the polls.

Examples?
The polls today have gone far smoother, and will have had far less problems and controversy that the florida elections of the past american election.

quote:

Originally posted by discojoe its sad really. i hope he wins. hes done alot of good in that country for the poor. i just hope he doesnt get too extreme

Sorry dude, but the country has gone downhill since he was elected president.
I'm Venezuelan and it's sad to see how the country is doing and the way he takes advantage of everything to receive more votes. He basically 'bribes' the ppl, etc.
I don't want to get started on this now

But one more thing, the whole voting thing from today, he's gonna win no matter what, it's manipulated by his ppl...

quote:

Originally posted by discojoe what the hell does that mean? So who were Latin America's biggest tyrants?

Hmm, let's see, Noriega, Pinochet...oh, wait, they were supported by the US!

Me coming from Chile and leaving under Part of Pinochet's era... mmm I shut. ..though, if it wasn't for him, my family would have been assassinated by Allende. The error of Pinochet was what he did to the communists.. and he widespread that, and did something like Chavez, stay in power.

I feel bad for the Venezuelans.. the guy won.

I agree with the premise of the article in that "expanding democracy" as espoused by the Bush Administration means exactly the opposite, however I'm not sure what to think about Mr. Chavez.

I don't know if his alleged abuses of power are simply fabrications of the right wing media, or if they are in fact true.

I think he has probably done some good to help the poor of Venezuela - half of which live in poverty.

This is why Mr. Bush doesn't like Chavez as he represents the large corporations and the elite, however Mr. Kerry's real position on Chavez is ambiguous since he is in "pandering mode" to try and win Florida's electoral votes.

I'm curious to know what his position will be on Chavez.

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040816Palast.shtml

quote:

The Peasants Speak: Chavez in a Landslide by Greg Palast published by GregPalast.com The Peasants Speak: Chavez in a Landslide There's so much BS and baloney thrown around about Venezuela that I may be violating some rule of US journalism by providing some facts. Let's begin with this: 77% of Venezuela's farmland is owned by 3% of the population, the 'hacendados.' I met one of these farmlords in Caracas at an anti-Chavez protest march. Oddest demonstration I've ever seen: frosted blondes in high heels clutching designer bags, screeching, "Chavez - dic-ta-dor!" The plantation owner griped about the "socialismo" of Chavez, then jumped into his Jaguar convertible. That week, Chavez himself handed me a copy of the "socialist" manifesto that so rattled the man in the Jag. It was a new law passed by Venezuela's Congress which gave land to the landless. The Chavez law transferred only fields from the giant haciendas which had been left unused and abandoned. This land reform, by the way, was promoted to Venezuela in the 1960s by that Lefty radical, John F. Kennedy. Venezuela's dictator of the time agreed to hand out land, but forgot to give peasants title to their property. But Chavez won't forget, because the mirror reminds him. What the affable president sees in his reflection, beyond the ribbons of office, is a "negro e indio" -- a "Black and Indian" man, dark as a cola nut, same as the landless and, until now, the hopeless. For the first time in Venezuela's history, the 80% Black-Indian population elected a man with skin darker than the man in the Jaguar. So why, with a huge majority of the electorate behind him, twice in elections and today with a nearly two-to-one landslide victory in a recall referendum, is Hugo Chavez in hot water with our democracy-promoting White House? Maybe it's the oil. Lots of it. Chavez sits atop a reserve of crude that rivals Iraq's. And it's not his presidency of Venezuela that drives the White House bananas, it was his presidency of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. While in control of the OPEC secretariat, Chavez cut a deal with our maximum leader of the time, Bill Clinton, on the price of oil. It was a 'Goldilocks' plan. The price would not be too low, not too high; just right, kept between $20 and $30 a barrel. But Dick Cheney does not like Clinton nor Chavez nor their band. To him, the oil industry's (and Saudi Arabia's) freedom to set oil prices is as sacred as freedom of speech is to the ACLU. I got this info, by the way, from three top oil industry lobbyists. Why should Chavez worry about what Dick thinks? Because, said one of the oil men, the Veep in his Bunker, not the pretzel-chewer in the White House, "runs energy policy in the United States." And what seems to have gotten our Veep's knickers in a twist is not the price of oil, but who keeps the loot from the current band-busting spurt in prices. Chavez had his Congress pass another oil law, the "Law of Hydrocarbons," which changes the split. Right now, the oil majors - like PhillipsConoco - keep 84% of the proceeds of the sale of Venezuela oil; the nation gets only 16%. Chavez wanted to double his Treasury's take to 30%. And for good reason. Landless, hungry peasants have, over decades, drifted into Caracas and other cities, building million-person ghettos of cardboard shacks and open sewers. Chavez promised to do something about that. And he did. "Chavez gives them bread and bricks," one Venezuelan TV reporter told me. The blonde TV newscaster, in the middle of a publicity shoot, said the words "pan y ladrillos" with disdain, making it clear that she never touched bricks and certainly never waited in a bread line. But to feed and house the darker folk in those bread and brick lines, Chavez would need funds, and the 16% slice of the oil pie wouldn't do it. So the President of Venezuela demanded 30%, leaving Big Oil only 70%. Suddenly, Bill Clinton's ally in Caracas became Mr. Cheney's -- and therefore, Mr. Bush's -- enemy. So began the Bush-Cheney campaign to "Floridate" the will of the Venezuela electorate. It didn't matter that Chavez had twice won election. Winning most of the votes, said a White House spokesman, did not make Chavez' government "legitimate." Hmmm. Secret contracts were awarded by our Homeland Security spooks to steal official Venezuela voter lists. Cash passed discreetly from the US taxpayer, via the so-called 'Endowment for Democracy,' to the Chavez-haters running today's "recall" election. A brilliant campaign of placing stories about Chavez' supposed unpopularity and "dictatorial" manner seized US news and op-ed pages, ranging from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times. But some facts just can't be smothered in propaganda ink. While George Bush can appoint the government of Iraq and call it "sovereign," the government of Venezuela is appointed by its people. And the fact is that most people in this slum-choked land don't drive Jaguars or have their hair tinted in Miami. Most look in the mirror and see someone "negro e indio," as dark as their President Hugo. The official CIA handbook on Venezuela says that half the nation's farmers own only 1% of the land. They are the lucky ones, as more peasants owned nothing. That is, until their man Chavez took office. Even under Chavez, land redistribution remains more a promise than an accomplishment. But today, the landless and homeless voted their hopes, knowing that their man may not, against the armed axis of local oligarchs and Dick Cheney, succeed for them. But they are convinced he would never forget them. And that's a fact. --- Greg Palast's reports from Venezuela for BBC Television's Newsnight and the Guardian papers of Britain earned a California State University Journalism School "Project Censored" award for 2002. View photos and Palast's reports on Venezuela at www.GregPalast.com.

Lets not forget that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves of any country not in the are known as the middle east (also one of the world's largest).

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Me coming from Chile and leaving under Part of Pinochet's era... mmm I shut. ..though, if it wasn't for him, my family would have been assassinated by Allende. The error of Pinochet was what he did to the communists.. and he widespread that, and did something like Chavez, stay in power.

Assassinated by Allende? Could you please elaborate a bit on that one? Because he seemed to me like a relatively nice leader.

quote:

I feel bad for the Venezuelans.. the guy won.

Why do you feel bad for them? They decided to choose him, nobody forced them to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Assassinated by Allende? Could you please elaborate a bit on that one? Because he seemed to me like a relatively nice leader.

- I'll tell you a bit about ALlende. Allende was a professional doctor, well educated guy. The people that he selected for the government and to coupe with him, were extremist communists, therefore, that influenced greatly on his decisions. It came to a point, that people were only able to get food through coupons, like a typical communist system. There was no ruling in the country, everyone was doing what the heck they felt like. The communist power had all of the sudden a great control over things done. People in Chile started to uprise and get furious on how things were been handled, and thats when they started assassinating people that voiced against the party or did not support it, and hence my Grandfather was in "Democracia Cristiana " party, which is like, the Democrats in the US, and since he was some known figure there, my family became part of the black list to be assassinated. Im just going over briefly, cause there's more into it.

Besides all that, Fidel Castro was a very common figure in CHile, he visited, and millions of dollars were currently given to Castro from Chile.

Pinochet came just in time, after various warnings given to Allende. After Allende was removoved, there was a relief in the Chilean society, as there was some type of chaos, and communist quickly fled to country's, such as Cuba, Venezuela, Sweden, Norway, among other european countries ( you will find various chilean community's that fled from Chile because of that ). But yeah, Ponocher became a whole different story afterwards.. violated human rights, tortures, among other things... but Allende's government was not far from starting doing the same stuff.

quote:

Why do you feel bad for them? They decided to choose him, nobody forced them to do so.

- I know, they voted for him.. but, like many leaders, he has become a very scary figure. Wanting to change the country's name to he's very close ties to Fidel Castro.. leaves much to say, but well, let's just hope for the best. I've got many Venezuelan friends, and I would just leave this up to them to explain.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.