November 19, 2007
“Why don’t you shut up?”
Rodolfo Hernández
In 2000 the Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano stated that the world was “upside down”. If you don’t believe it, just take a look to what recently happened during the XVII Ibero American Summit in Chile (Nov. 13, 2007): “Why don’t you shut up?” ordered the king of Spain Juan Carlos I to Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, after the Latin American leader called José María Aznar, former Spain’s president, a “fascist”. The abrupt intervention of the King occurred while the current head of Spaniard government José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero defended Aznar from Chavez’ accusation. The episode ended minutes later when Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega referred in his intervention to the collaboration between the Spaniard and the U.S. government to defeat the Sandinistas in the presidential election. The king left the room visibly upset.
Is the world upside down? We have the socialist Rodriguez Zapatero demanding respect to right-wing ex president Aznar (arguing that he has been “democratically” elected), while the king of Spain (who represents the monarchy, a quintessentially anti-democratic institution) was sitting next to him! So in the world upside down the left defends the right even though the right led Spain to participate in the war in Iraq.
Furthermore, under this new rationality, shall we assume that the atrocities committed by a government must not be objected to or morally condemned only because they were actions of a “democratically” elected government? Needless to say it was the intervention of Spain in Iraq, ending with the terrible terrorist attacks in Madrid in March 11 of 2004 killing 192 innocent people that lead to the defeat of Aznar’s party (the Partido Popular) in the presidential elections of 2004.
And what about president Bush and his neo-colonial war in Iraq? Would Zapatero also urge us to respect him and his war just because he was “democratically elected” (which it is still questionable)? So, is the world upside down? Yes, the world is absolutely upside down, and maybe that is the reason why the king believes that he still is living in the XVI century and he can order to shut up to one of his subjects.
What could be the motivations that led the king to try to silence president Chávez? Is it because Chávez is really a “threat to the market economy, to freedom, co-existence and citizen’s welfare,” as it was referred in “Latin America: an Agenda for Freedom”, a document published in 2007, by the “Fundación Para El Análisis y Los Estudios Sociales”, a think-tank founded by Aznar?
This is not the first time that Latin Americans have been ordered to remain in silence. They have been requested to do so, sometimes politely, sometimes not. Genocide, for example, was one of the methods to force the population to shut up and to fulfill the goals of the Spanish conquers. As Bartolomé de las Casas pointed out, in the XVI century, the motivations for “killing and destroying such an infinite number of souls is that the Christians have an ultimate aim, which is to acquire gold. It should be kept in mind that their insatiable greed and ambition, the greatest ever seen in the world, is the cause of their villainies.”
The king of Spain’s “why don’t you shut up?” embodies the connection with former notions of “natural” subjection of Latin Americans to new class interests to control and exploit the continent as in the old days of the monarchy. Maybe that “insatiable greed and ambition” keeps trying to run in the once upon a time called “New World”. Possibly, behind the unexpected intervention of the King and Zapatero’s defense of former president Aznar, are the old imperial ambitions, this time represented by the Spaniard corporations, such as Repsol, the oil company that has been severely affected by ongoing nationalization programs in Latin American countries, such as Bolivia.
In the XIX century, the Revolutionary Proclamation of the Junta Tuitiva in La Paz in July 16 of 1809, responded to the Spaniard monarchy: “We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity,” Galeano notes in 1973. After nearly two hundred years, it seems that Latin Americans have no other option but to be the subjects in silence of the “greed and ambition”. Yes, definitely the world is totally upside down, and the imperial ambition to dominate Latin America, in a new way and even more brutally as before, is still there. That is why Latin America cannot be shut up -- even by a king.
Posted by Michael Blim at 09:43 PM | Permalink
Comments
Excellent post. This is hard to argue against. I think we all realize the Hugo has his limitations but considering his countries past I believe it is us in the west that should be shuting up and see what we can do to help. We have a very questionable legacy with regaurds to our medling in latin american affairs. I hope the new presisent in 2009 will try to take responsibilty and work for the continued improvements to the lives of so many that we have exploited. We can start by debt forgivness to places like Nicaragua. And only work for trade agreement that benifit all classes. Its time for America to act like the leader we should have been for the past 100 years or so.
Posted by: michael | Nov 19, 2007 11:24:44 PM
A friend of mine, a scholar who is doing research in Spain, had similar comments in her blog:
http://onetoughvoncookie.com/?p=759
Posted by: Mark Pritchard | Nov 19, 2007 11:58:47 PM
I am Spanish, I am no right-wing or monarchy supporter but I think the king of Spain just said what many people in Venezuela and around South America would like to say to Hugo Chávez: just shut up (and leave for good).
For some reason you don't take in account that, even if Hugo Chávez was elected "democratically" the first time, he has been acting more and more as a dictator as years go by (look at his plans to change the constitution to remain in power forever), and he definitely wants to make South America his sort of medieval show. He is a megalomaniac (please, watch one of his TV shows, or listen to his speeches), he doesn't respect anybody.
Maybe the king's ways were not the best, I agree. Maybe things can be sorted out in quite a better way, but I still think that the bad guy here is Mr. Chávez.
Regarding help to South America, I think the first country that should implement that help should be the USA, even if it is just for repentance for all the misleadings and interventions it took on the south american countries for so long.
Posted by: Paula | Nov 20, 2007 1:33:39 AM
Jesus Christ, I'm going to stop reading this blog if you keep posting this crap. Chávez is a totalitarian blowhard. Defending him is the last thing so-called liberals need to be doing. Writing "Latin America cannot be shut up" in a paean to Hugo Chávez? Fer fucksake, the man shut down Venezuela's most popular television station!
Posted by: oy | Nov 20, 2007 2:08:00 AM
Haven't you heard? Left is the new Right, and the world has always been upside down from the perspective of Australia.
No, really, your ideas seem a bit outdated and your comments completely ill-founded.
You suggest that from this new upside-down logic it follows to assume that the atrocities committed by a government must not be objected to or morally condemned only because they were actions of a “democratically” elected government.
But Zapatero said literally: "One can disagree radically with the ideas... condemn the ideas and the behaviors without having to dishonor (the person)", because if you dishonor the person you're dishonoring the people that elected him/her. The main point Zapatero was trying to make is that one of the basic principles in a dialogue (particularly in an official international interchange) is mutual respect. Of course, the King fails to hear his own prime minister's advice and disrespects Chavez by telling him to shut up. But in any case, the King was not trying to censor Chavez's opinions, he was rudely asking him to let Zapatero speak as the Venezuelan president was interrupting the latter every three seconds.
So, to interpret an unfortunate exchange about forms into an imperialistic conspiracy seems quite unreasonable not to mention a little bit paranoid.
Posted by: paula | Nov 20, 2007 2:24:38 AM
Perhaps you should watch the video again.
Chavez was interrupting the Spanish prime minister every 5 seconds. He was doing so not to say anything important, but to repeat over and over again a deeply offensive ("Aznar was a fascist") and childish claim. He was shouting Zapatero down in order to pontificate on his own hobby horse.
His behavior was entirely in character, and also entirely outside normal standards of behavior manners. A head of state does not shout down a foreign prime minister for anything, under any circumstances. He certainly doesn't heckle! And so he was told to shut up. All your layers of post-imperialist speculation are so much diversionary waffle.
Also, for a classic caudillo like Chavez to accuse Aznar of fascism in front of Juan-Carlos II, who took Spain from fascism to democracy and single-handedly faced down a military coup, showed a spectacular lack of intelligence. Perhaps the King should have told him to grow up, rather than shut up.
Posted by: bge | Nov 20, 2007 2:44:29 AM
Ridiculous. What, king Juan wants to re-establish the vice-royalty of Granada or something, if we are to believe this article? Maybe it's not within the decorum of a constitutional monarch, but he did what every decent human being would like to do in his place, to tell an obnoxious and pompous gasbag to shut the fuck up. The only politics you'll find here are the kind you'll find in any group of higher primates.
Posted by: a french swede is a rootless vegetable | Nov 20, 2007 1:24:58 PM
http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2007/11/20/3364233.html
you sheeple need another point of view
Posted by: anechoic | Nov 20, 2007 3:59:57 PM
Dear Shepard,
You call that partisan rant a "point of view"?
Please give us more intelligent links to follow.
beeee
Posted by: paula | Nov 20, 2007 5:34:43 PM
I agree with the other comments: to associate the king's "Shut up" with genocide and imperialism is utter garbage. Juan Carlos doesn't need his pro-democratic credentials scrutinized, after his firm stand against a Putch attempt in Spain 20 years ago. It is a pity that Chavez is marring his achievements in social reform by spilling over into Marxist rhetoric.
Posted by: aguy109 | Nov 21, 2007 3:52:04 AM
Based on your comments it seems that nobody disagrees with me about the negative moral and political implications of Aznar’s government participation in Bush’s war in Iraq. And also I am glad there is no substantial disagreement about the reference to the U.S. and Spain political intervention against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Curiously, the media only emphasized Chavez behavior in the meeting, but not the issue of the U.S. interventions in Latin America, as president Daniel Ortega referred. Why? Is it because it is historically irrelevant in the current emergence of center-left governments in Latin America, including Venezuela? I don’t think so, I think it is rather because is one of the substantial elements of the debate. In his book Historia de las intervenciones de Estados Unidos en América Latina (History of the U.S. interventions in Latin America) Gregorio Selser accounts each one of the U.S. military interventions in the continent. Interventions which, needless to say, have frequently ended with a diverse collection of dictators, caudillos, tropical and populists autocrats that have been leading figures in the production of social, political, economical and cultural structures necessary for the plundering by regional, national, and U.S. elites (remember for example Noriega in Panama, who latter became the bad guy, oh poor guy!). The interests of one group –even their national differences- have been the interest of the class as a whole. Just recall when Margaret Thatcher called Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet “a great democrat”. Well, here again we had the world totally upside down. What are the criteria used to identify the political system of a Latin American country as a democracy? Throwing bombs in “La Moneda” to assassinate a president democratically elected by the people, or to be another puppet government of the Empire in charge of the business?
Let’s see for example a Latin American country, let’s say Mexico, ruled for more than seven decades for the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, the PRI. The Peruvian writer, Mario Vargas Llosa, called the PRI government the “perfect dictatorship”. For more than seven decades the PRI governments followed the U.S. foreign policy in Latin America: the Alliance for Progress, the Green Revolution, the Washington Consensus and so on and so forth. The PRI governments ruled, not only through consensus but with the use of violence against the opposition. For example, during the neoliberal government of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988 to 1994) more than 500 hundred members of the left wing party were assassinated; during the government of his successor, Ernesto Zedillo, the government perpetrated one of the most atrocious acts against indigenous communities in the state of Chiapas. On December 23 of 1997, 45 indigenous people (including 21 women and 10 children) were assassinated by paramilitaries while they were praying. The methods used to kill the people resembled a lot to those of the Kaibiles in Guatemala, and the Contras. The killing in Acteal was referred by the writer and journalist Herman Bellinghausen, as “the major massacre of women and children in the modern history of Mexico”. As in many other cases during the PRI government (as the massacre of Mexican students in 1968, with the direct participation of former president Echeverria) there was no proper government investigation to identify the assassins since the justice apparatus was totally controlled by the PRI. Just keep in mind that in the idea of a formal democracy, the independent working of the government institutions should be the norm. Nevertheless, as latter on independent investigations demonstrated, in the massacre of Acteal there were involved not only the local authorities with the protection of the Army and the Police, but also the former president Ernesto Zedillo. The U.S. never accused the Mexican government of being authoritarian or of committing crimes against its citizens, which is a common practice in a dictatorship: the exercise of State violence against citizens. Now former president Zedillo is the director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization and he is treated as a respectable scholar in one of the most prestigious U.S. universities. Is it the world upside down? Well, I think definitely it is.
The PRI was never accused for governing more than seven decades (by means of electoral frauds). Not any U.S. government condemned the “perfect dictatorship” of the PRI. Not even when former minister of Commerce, the technocrat Jaime Serra Puche said in the 1990s that the ruling group in Mexico was ready to rule for another 25 years (which of course they are doing after the electoral fraud against the left-center coalition in the presidential elections of 2006). The “perfect dictatorship”, which was so close to the U.S. border, was never portrayed by the U.S. government as a threat to its national or to the hemispheric security. Why this attitude of the U.S. government against the so-called “perfect dictatorship”? Well, maybe because the Mexican government had been a strong adherent of the Washington Consensus and the shock policies of the IMF and the World Bank. However, suddenly it appears this new South American caudillo with really bad manners in the table. Yes, he often has very rough manners. Hasn’t he? But it is that the fundamental issue? Or what is really important is the Venezuela’s political (national and regional)agenda? So, why then all this U.S. government hysteria against Chávez? Remember when Secretary of State Condolezza Rice referred to Chávez as a threat to the hemispheric stability in 2006. Is it because Venezuelan government is not a puppet government, as the dictatorships usually imposed by the U.S. in the region? Then I think that we could be in the path of finding the real motivations behind this portrayal. What are for instance the probes that the Chavez government is a threat? As with the war in Iraq, the only “probe” that the U.S. government has presented is similar to those (the “weapons of mass destruction”) used to legitimate the war. Nevertheless, any informed, responsible and educated citizen should reject this kind of probes and ask for the facts. Furthermore the U.S. government should be morally obligated to prove its accusations against Chávez, particularly when they assure that Venezuelan government is a threat for the hemispheric stability and obviously it is putting the U.S. citizens at risk. Maybe, some U.S. and European citizens don’t think that this is necessary because they are taking for granted that all Latin American presidents are nothing but a bunch of lunatics or assassins, as the guy at Yale who is working on globalization.
It seems that Latin America has always been a land of the bon sauvage or of a tropical gang of caudillos thirsty of power and wealth. But their citizens never deserve the right to be considered as political agents capable of electing their own governments. Their governments are usually seen as the result of an individual will, but never the product of social struggles. When the Latin American governments are not the clients of Washington, then they usually are portrayed as the omnipotent products of a caudillo, or at least of a charismatic leader (but of course an authoritarian one). In this very fragmented picture, Latin Americans never appear as changing their own history. The U.S. and European interventions together with the Latin American elites have historically impeded this goal. And to do so, their governments have always required not only the use of brute force against Latin Americans, but the construction of consensus among their respective citizens that political and military intervention is necessary to put in order that bunch of noisy guys in the U.S. backyard. My impression is that we should go beyond the arguments that Chavez is an authoritarian or a lunatic, and attempt to inquiry in the contemporary political transformations in Venezuela and the region and then to ask why the U.S. government is so concerned with his government. In the meantime I think as Noam Chomsky (2007) has said, we can begin accepting “the fundamental moral principle that we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others”. In the meantime, I am afraid that the world is upside down, is sadly upside down.
Posted by: Rodolfo Hernandez Corchado | Nov 22, 2007 9:34:43 AM
The point about Latin American caudillos brings to mind another irony about this whole affair: Chavez -- a classic caudillo -- using the label fascist as an epithet against a Spaniard, i.e. someone from the land of "El Caudillo," Franco.
Posted by: Old Caudillo | Nov 22, 2007 5:26:09 PM
Rodolfo,
You have a tendency to see everything in purely dualistic terms. Up-down,left-right, good-evil. Things are much more complex than that. There's a lot of research on the Acteal masacre. Read other sources besides "la Jornada" and other authors besides Bellinghausen (not precisely the most objective of writers). Acteal was not the product of a battle between the good guys versus the bad guys, but the result of a complicated net of interests in which the church, local governments and caciques all played a part.
Zedillo is not precisely a paragon of virtue but he had a ket role in the Mexican democratic transition. And, accusing him of having to do directly with the Acteal massacre is like saying George Bush was directly responsible for the Rodney King incident.
Latin America has been consistently abused by powerful countries, that's true, but the left needs to stop backing-up vacuous populism and instead focus on fighting for real social justice.
Posted by: paula | Nov 23, 2007 1:14:40 PM
Paula,
You are absolutely right: things are more complex. I totally agree, but if things are so complex, why you did not give us your journalist, academic or official sources that probe that the massacre of Acteal in 1997 was not a crime of a state as you said. In any serious debate, if you are going to deny the statements of someone else you are obligated to refer your sources to probe it. So let me be clear: to which “research”on the Acteal massacre” are you referring to?
Yes, you can criticize any newspaper, source, writer or journalist that you want. If you are going to accuse a newspaper as “La Jornada” (you are in your entire right to do it) you MUST tell me why it lacks of objectivity. It is very easy to deny the objectivity of a source, but of course is more difficult to defend an accusation with facts.
And the same goes for the statement that you make about the Mexican journalist and writer Herman Bellinghausen (who receive the National Prize of Journalism in 1995, and he rejected it) if you accuse someone for lacking objectivity, again, please do me a favor and show me you probes and tell me what are your sources. As you correctly said, things are more complex.
Please, do not put in my mouth words that I never said, especially when you refer to the massacre in Acteal (a murder which the so called government of the democratic transition never resolved). I never said that it was the “the product of a battle between the good guys versus the bad guys”. So, don’t put me words that I did not say. What I said, and I am going to repeat you, is that the murder in Acteal was a crime of State, and former president Zedillo was involved since the beginning of the contra insurgency strategy since 1995. Just to remind you, the Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Bartolome de las Casas, accused legally former president Zedillo in 2005 before the Interamerican Court of Human Rights for crimes against humanity. O course is more easy as you do, to refer to an abstract net of local, regional and national interest that include the church and the caciques. Just to remind you the caciques have been central political figures in the presidentialist political system.
In the XIX century Marx argued that the dominant ideas of a period are the dominant ideas of the ruling class. Well, the idea that the massacre of Acteal was not a State crime against indigenous people is the dominant idea of the ruling group that has dominated Mexico since the end of the Mexican Revolution I won’t continue in the issue of Acteal, since I think is an issue for another column. With this response I finish my participation in this issue. Since you do not present arguments, ideas, or your sources, I find this “discussion” totally useless.
Posted by: Rodolfo Hernandez | Nov 24, 2007 7:09:01 PM
I never said it wasn’t a state crime. By saying that Acteal is the result of a complex net of interests, I’m not implying that paramilitary groups and the PRI were not involved, or that there isn’t a consistent abuse of the state’s monopoly of violence. What I’m saying is that in the middle of a conflict as the one in Chiapas truths are hard to pin down and you can’t blame a single guy for something like that.
Now, you're the one who's accusing someone so it seems to me that the burden of proof is on your side. To which “independent investigations” are you referring? You never tell us (oops there goes one of your rules of “serious debate”). Anyway to expand your views let me do some of the work for you. Here are several interesting references I’ve found from diverse sources (the sources I was referring to):
-------------
The Indians’ Prophet
El Profeta De Los Indios, Enrique Krauze, Letras Libres
http://www.letraslibres.com/index.php?Art=5628
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=262 (in English)
Chiapas & The Church
By George A. Collier, Jane F. Collier, with Reply By Enrique Krauze
In Response To Chiapas: The Indians' Prophet (December 16, 1999)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/144
International Human Rights Watch Civil Commission Final Report:
Informe Final de la Comisión Civil Internacional de Observación por los Derechos Humanos 1.1.4. Visita A La Comunidad De Las Abejas En Acteal. 18 De Febrero De 1998
http://cciodh.pangea.org/IIb.1.htm
Notes On the judicial process:
Acteal, An Endless Judicial Process. Acteal, un juicio interminable.
http://www.el-universal.com.mx/notas/444675.html
La matanza de Acteal, reflejo de violencia y la impunidad que aún perduran en México
Por Joel Solomon, Proceso No. 1112, 22 de febrero de 1998
http://www.hrw.org/spanish/opiniones/1998/mexico_acteal.html
Academic papers:
Mansferrer, E. (1998) Configuración del Campo Religioso Después de Acteal, Revista académica para el estudio de las religions.
http://www.revistaacademica.com/TII/Capitulo_1.pdf
Marion M.O. (1998), Religión, identidad y rebellion en las cañadas, Revista académica para el estudio de las religions.
http://www.revistaacademica.com/TII/Capitulo_2.pdf
Kovic , Ch (2003)The Struggle for Liberation and Reconciliation in Chiapas, Mexico: Las Abejas and the Path of Nonviolent Resistance
Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 30, No. 3, Popular Participation against Neoliberalism (May, 2003), pp. 58-79
-----------------------
BTW, I think Bellinghausen is not very objective simply because I have read many of his pieces. It’s not an accusation, it’s an opinion. Just check out this example:
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2004/10/24/sem-hermann.html.
Not accepting the prize doesn’t make him more objective, it just makes him more honest. Objectivity and honesty are not exactly the same. In fact, one can be honest about one’s biases.
Posted by: paula | Nov 25, 2007 12:48:54 AM
It's a powerful indicative of the resonance that Chavez's ideas have in Latin America, that, although practically all of the mainstream media is against him, as many people would like him to keep speaking up as those who want him to "shut up and leave (for good)", as Paula delicately put it. Yes, Paula, he was elected democratically (your use of quotation marks indicates you don't agree with such a simple and well-documented fact). As for "oy's" comment, it should be repeated (yet again!) that he didn't "shut down" Venezuela's most popular TV station, but waited until their airwave concession was up to not renew it (in Venezuela the airwaves don't belong to the private media and these contract renewals are the purview of the executive, which means there's no reason to assume the renewal should be automatic) because of their participation in the coup attempt of April 2002. I doubt that any "Western" government would have even accepted that kind of situation and I'm pretty sure they would have closed down the offending TV station the same day of the coup and placed its owners in prison.
These lies and disinformation about the Chavez government are routinely spread around by "Western" journalists and uncritically repeated by the likes of Paula and oy. A typical example is Paula's assertion that he's planning to "change the constitution so he can remain in power forever". The constitutional reform (if approved in a NATIONAL REFERENDUM) would eliminate the limits in the amount of terms a person can be elected president (something akin to what many European countries already have). It's no secret that he would like to be re-elected, so what? I can't barely think of anything more democratic that a president being elected for as many terms as the voters demand it. A Spanish citizen like Paula, who lives in a "constitutional monarchy" in which a king appointed as successor by a retrograde dictator nominates the prime minister for a lower house vote is not exactly the most appropriate person to criticize an advanced electoral system that even contemplates the possibility of a referendum to kick out a president if enough people want him out.
It should also be pointed out that the proposed constitutional reform contemplates many more articles than the one mentioned by Paula. Among the changes would be the shortening of the work-week to 36 hours, the extension of Social Security benefits for the 40-something percent of the population that work in the "informal economy", the express prohibition of any kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation and yes, the suspension of the right to information in an emergency (something potentially very dangerous but also something for which I can't blame the Chavez government after having gone through a coup attempt and the oil sector lockout).
The main problem with Venezuela's current political culture is the refusal of the opposition to accept the legitimacy of the government. Comments like Paula's and oy's make me think that this sort of attitude is also prevalent outside of Venezuela.
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 25, 2007 9:32:00 AM
Just to clear up, I hope you realize there are two Paulas in this debate, Paula with a capital P (she says she's Spanish) and me, paula without the capital P.
Posted by: paula | Nov 25, 2007 12:59:38 PM
Paula (or paula):
I really don't care. So far your opinions seem interchangeable to me.
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 25, 2007 2:40:45 PM
Of course you don't. All opinions must be interchangeable to someone without the capacity to discern.
Posted by: paula | Nov 25, 2007 9:52:29 PM
I am glad that finally Pepito could return the discussion to what was Rodolfo's original point of departure, that of offering evidences and ideas to start -for once and for all- reflecting on the current state of the separation between moral and politics not only in Mexico but in Latin America's politics and the neoliberal geopolitics in general. This was never about Chávez, the king, or even less about Zedillo, politics is no about individuals but it is really about what they do represent as historical subjects either exerting power, or standing for social justice. Thanks to Rodolfo to remind us that in "the war against the oblivion", reason will always prevail.
Posted by: Claudia | Nov 25, 2007 11:27:39 PM
Are you kidding? original point? Have you read the title? For crying out loud, you people live in another century, not even the 20th. Politics is of course about the individuals, common go back to high school. If talking about the relevance of a particular individual exerting political power in determined escenario in time, of course you have to take into account his/her impact historicaly but if you are talking about the activity of creating or excerting politics is of course about individuals, the people, it has alwasys been. Well of course if you are marxist then is about the state, but that another story. have a go to a bit of at least of wikipedia before posting that goes to you and pepito.
Posted by: Ric | Nov 26, 2007 1:01:45 AM
By the way, Chavez today said "if you say no to the referendum you all are traitors!" very nice
Posted by: Ric | Nov 26, 2007 1:03:47 AM
Viva the King!
Posted by: TH in SA | Nov 26, 2007 7:53:50 AM
What is interesting as to how this debate has been going -- all credit to writer and readers -- is that as it has been enlarged to pick up the role of American imperialism. American involvment in the long-term economic and political problems of Latin America, there seems to be either silence or agreement with Hernandez' claims.
To be sure, Chavez is a lightning rod, but Rodolfo's point is how he becomes one, and what is lost in understanding the full Venezuela scene by going for the bait, or a better metaphor, the chum spread upon the waters by the US State and Defense Departments.
On the Chavez score, why does the United States single him out when there are so many interesting autocrats, dictators, and caudillos that it supports to think about. In today's news we have Musharef and the two King Abdullahs (Jordan and Saudi Arabia), the latter two being pressured to help cover up the further Palestinian subjugation.
Then there is the past to consider. It is a long list. There seems to have been a military flavor to our sons of bitches, as FDR called Trujillo. But we seem to have been an equal opportunity recruiter of sons of bitches.
In the Caribbean, for starters: Guatemala, Nicaragua, Salvador, Cuba, Panama, and Haiti.
South Asia: Pakistan a number of times.
Southeast Asia: the Philippines and Indonesia.
East Asia: Korea and Taiwan.
Latin America: Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, and Peru.
Middle East: Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.
Europe: Turkey, Romania, and Yugoslavia, Portugal, Greece, and Spain.
Sub-Saharan Africa: Nigeria, Congo (Zaire), and Uganda. There are probably others; my geography is tested here. The French were much better at supporting dictators than we in "their" Åfrica.
Russia in the case of Chechnia? Lately, for sure, the State and Defense Departments have realized that Putin is his own son of a bitch.
Then there are caudillos in democratic clothing, an example of which are laid out by Rodolfo with respect to Mexico.
If I have missed any country for inclusion on this distinguished list, please help me out.
Finally, there are "our sons of bitches," the caudillo-cowboys running wars in Iraq and Afganistan. They suspend habeas corpus and appoint a new attorney general frank as to say that the president can be above the law in times of "national security." They try aliens in military courts, and refuse to prosecute American Iraqi killers in American criminal courts. Whatever you may think of what is left of the civil rights of American citizens, surely you have noticed that those rights are suspended abroad with CIA kidnappings, renditions in torture capitals, covert imprisonment, and an historic disinclination (see occupied countries such as Germany, Korean, and Japan) to allow American military personnel to be tried in other sovereign nations where they are stationed and commit crimes.
Shall we talk now about Chavez?
Not my cup of tea, I admit. A threat to the American empire, perhaps. That's okay by me. As big a threat to America as American imperialism at work? Don't think so.
Perhaps it's best to think of him as the anti-imperialist's "son of a bitch."
Posted by: Michael Blim | Nov 26, 2007 5:01:30 PM
Michael,
Don't be fooled by the rocks that he's got. Chavez's regime is a totalitarian experiment that uses Anti-imperialism as a rhetorical resource. His words are the type of seeds that have proven to be extremely fertile in Latin America for centuries. If you want to win an election, the support of your people, or start a paper "revolution" just make it look as if you stood against the giant, as if you're protecting the dignity of your nation. This is today the discourse of populists from every point of the political and ideological compass in L.America and perhaps the world. Chavez particular tactics are, in addition, incendiary and clearly aimed at provocation. He's an expert at issuing statements that need "tough" official responses. But his anti-imperialism is pure facade, just as the U.S. government's anti-Chavism is hypocritical. The interests of Venezuela and the U.S. are too intimately linked.
Of course, Lain American anti-americanism has its historic roots in American imperialism. But can we really speak of an American imperialism today? The involvment of the U.S. in the economic and political problems of Latin America is either non-existent or a clumsy opportunistic and clueless set of short-term actions and junctures. So if anything, the biggest threat to America is neither anti-imperialist caudillos like Chavez nor American imperialism at work, but the lack of anything that resembles a coherent long-term political strategy to use power and influence other nations in purposeful and rightful ways. Chavez and populism in general, is definitely more a threat to Latin America than to the U.S.
Posted by: paula | Nov 27, 2007 3:47:12 AM
Paula: Well put. I figure: examine the Chavez case on its merits. Don' have a clear view myself, to be frank. I have been taken out in exalted circles for refering to Chavez as a Bonapartist, so...
It's more a matter of let s/he without sin cast the first stone.
Am not as sanguine as you about the disappearance of American imperialism in the regions of the Caribbean, Central and Latin America. My sense, like yours, is that America's dream of chummy, like-minded, not to say compliant neighbors to the south has, well, gone south. Its only specific policy for the regions seems to be Anti-Chavezism, and the consquent need to extirpate the red meance. The American regime's disasters in the Middle East have probably blunted any policy focus whatsoever.
Doesn't mean that rough justice on behalf of empire is foreclosed or even over, if only they could right their sinking ship.
There is an awakening fear of a powerful Brazil, for instance. There is fear (and the actions of largely impotent American ambassadors) of the Andean tilt toward the left. Can't magine the CIA isn't active down south, unless their resources are too taxed by the Middle East mess.
Don't see any sunset on the horizon for American control for its proxy agencies the World Bank and the IMF. Their soft power now seeks to incorporate the oncoming new states, but the governance remains in the hands of the Americans, and to a lesser extent at the IMF, the Europeans.
Posted by: michael blim | Nov 27, 2007 11:54:37 AM
Given the depths to which the commentary on this piece has run the following is at most an aside.
I recently saw a television news item on how samples of "¿Por qué no te callas?" were now the most popular ringtones with Spanish cell phone users.
The reporters interviewed various owners of this novelty item and got rather tepid responses from them as to why they had chosen it. It all seemed like apolitical consumer goofiness. But then again; the people most likely to agree with Chavez probably don't go in for vanity ring-tones or for that matter, many of them can't afford cell phones.
Having looked at the incident in question a few times now, it strikes me as odd that the King's "outburst" and Chavez's interrupting seem rather subdued but then as a Canadian I'm used to Parliamentary debates which hover somewhere on the decorum scale between World Federation
Wrestling matches and baboon troop Alpha male smack downs.I wish my elected representatives were as rude as Spanish speaking politicians. Like I said; just an aside.
Posted by: Pete Chapman | Nov 27, 2007 1:00:42 PM
This:
"even if Hugo Chávez was elected "democratically" the first time, he has been acting more and more as a dictator as years go by (look at his plans to change the constitution to remain in power forever), and he definitely wants to make South America his sort of medieval show. He is a megalomaniac (please, watch one of his TV shows, or listen to his speeches), he doesn't respect anybody."
And this:
"Chavez's regime is a totalitarian experiment that uses Anti-imperialism as a rhetorical resource. "
As I said before, virtually interchangeable. Even my infinitesimal capacity for discernment can perceive that.
But seriously: that "totalitarian experiment" has been revealed to produce the second highest percentage of satisfaction with democracy in all of Latin America (after Uruguay), the highest percentage of people who trust democracy in Latin America (tied with Uruguay), highest percentage of people who trust their government, second highest percentage of people who trust their president in particular (again, after Uruguay), highest percentage in their belief that their government works for the well-being of the people and, by far, the most hopeful about the future of their economy in all of Latin America by the reputed Chilean neoliberal firm Latinobarómetro (which seems to be slightly surprised by these numbers) in their last poll.
As Chávez followers usually say, joking around: "este comunismo nos está matando".
The Latinobarómetro latest poll can be checked out here: http://www.latinobarometro.org/
if you happen to understand Spanish and have some free time in your hands.
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 27, 2007 9:02:36 PM
you should have seen the satisfaction numbers from the politburo back in the day, they were very high as well. and the few that were not in favor were requested kindly to take their opinions to siberia basically for being traitors, pretty much like those who do not think monsieur chavez should spend more of his talented time creating tension in latin America. Just to talk about the 3 last days of news.
Posted by: ric | Nov 27, 2007 11:39:40 PM
Pepito:
Then I might just as well "shut up". You have delighted me long enough.
But first, I'll quote from The Economist in the link you gave us:
Thanks to its bounteous oil revenues and Hugo Chávez's rapport with many of his country's poor, Venezuela stands out in the poll. Some 56% of respondents there said that the distribution of wealth in the country was fair, way above the regional average of 24%. DESPITE THIS, 63% of Venezuelan respondents said they had difficulties paying their bills each month, well above the regional average of 49%.
The poll finds that Mr Chávez is no more popular in Latin Americas as a whole than George Bush. He is considerably less popular than Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Spain's king, Juan Carlos, and its prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (with both of whom Mr Chávez crossed words at a recent Ibero-American summit).
Posted by: paula | Nov 28, 2007 12:15:26 AM
Ric:
Yes, you are right. Chávez's popularity in Venezuela just shows that he's actually a dictator. Those who don’t like him will be sent to Venezuela’s version of Siberia. He’s Saddam, Stalin and Hitler rolled into one. It is also true that the fact that scientists have repeatedly said there's no proof that there are little green men visiting us from Mars is the best indicative that there actually are LGMs, and that there's an extensive conspiracy dedicated to deny that fact. Anything that disproves your a priori conclusion is just another proof in favor of your a priori conclusion.
paula:
You're nitpicking. The Economist, notwithstanding its claims to objectivity is clearly showing its bias by focusing on that particular item. Yes, Venezuelans may have more difficulty paying their bills (which by the way has historically been the case since the country became impoverished in the 80s) but we are referring to your claims of a "totalitarian experiment". Claims for which there's no evidence in favor, and, as the Latinobarómetro poll shows, there's plenty against.
"The poll finds Mr Chávez is no more popular in Latin Americas as a whole than George Bush", which is not surprising taking into account the fact, as I said before, that most of the commercial press in Latin America is against him and that most Latin Americans get their news from AP and Reuters anyways.
“Lula is more popular in Latin America”
No shit. Lula's pleasant character, along with his non-confrontational approach surely makes him popular among most Latin Americans (although Chávez has consistently had higher levels of popularity in Venezuela than Lula in Brazil, which I think is, somehow, a more important parameter to evaluate his government). What matters is not what most Latin Americans think of Hugo Chávez but what Venezuelans (those who elected him and towards whom he is directly responsible) think of him. And they overwhelmingly support his “totalitarian experiment”.
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 28, 2007 9:44:28 AM
You forgot Santa, according to your line of thinking he does exists and is part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Oh no, wait that is Chavez as well.
Posted by: ric | Nov 28, 2007 1:17:21 PM
Common dude. Obviously Siberia is a bit too much, even you could see that but his constant fighting with academia, closing down spaces and student organizations, declaring that education has to serve the "revolution" closing down a tv station that does not broadcast his own personal agenda, calling traitor everyone who votes against him, clearing opposition from congress, his outspoken wish of expansion, . These are not signs of a tolerant, free speech country that holds democratic values. And these things just scratching the surface a bit.
Posted by: ric | Nov 28, 2007 3:05:54 PM
Look, Ric. Far be it from me to agree with everything Hugo Chávez does or says (I find him too confrontational at times). But you are going to have to be more specific: as far as I know, the only TV channel that has been closed since 1999 (when Chávez was elected for the first time), was Catia TV, a pro-Chávez community channel that was shut down by the anti-Chávez mayor of Caracas at the time of the coup attempt in 2002. No student organizations or "spaces" (wtf?) have been closed. RCTV's license, as I explained above, was not renewed when it expired (2007) because they participated actively in the 2002 coup attempt (how long would, say, CNN stay open after participating in a coup attempt in the USA?), and, their 'closing" notwithstanding, they're currently operating in Venezuela by cable TV. The opposition actually boycotted the National Assembly elections (probably their worst mistake so far) but according to you Chávez "cleared" them from congress.
I don't even think you have any idea of what has transpired in Venezuela these last few weeks. Yesterday a pro- Chávez worker was killed on his way to work by a mob of anti- Chávez protesters that were burning cars and closing the main streets of a town in Carabobo state. This particular event has received scant attention in the international press,as opposed to all the reporting about the supposed shootings at students a few weeks ago by a Chavista mob (it turned out that the opposition students were trying to set fire to a building inside UCV, the main University in Caracas with a group of pro- Chávez students inside and a couple of pro- Chávez people armed with guns came to rescue them). The opposition students have been the darlings of the international media, with publicity stunts such as chaining themselves to the doors of the National Assembly so they could accuse the police of repression when told to clear the entrance.
They have been marching against a constitutional reform that they could perfectly vote against on December 2nd, using their constitutionally granted voting power to reject it, something U.S. marchers against the American war in Iraq, for instance, never had the chance to do. See what I'm getting at? They are doing everything they can to stop the referendum from happening, while European citizens and U.S. citizens for instance, don't even have a say in matters that are of equal or more importance to them. Sarkozy just passed a reform without any consultation and has rightly had to put up with protests and strikes. Somehow I doubt that there would be many protests in France if he had submitted the retirement reform to popular consultation. And that's just scratching the surface, as you said.
As for Chávez's "wish of expansion", all I can say is: "who does he think he is, the president of the United States?"
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 28, 2007 4:48:47 PM
Is that last bit about Chavez not being the president of USA intended to make fun of my president or my country? Guess again Jose boy, Bush is not my president as I am not from the USA.
Then, Chavez is bad but not as bad as Bush so that makes him alright.the situation is, I know things have more depth and have more sides than black or white. My understanding is that you have obviously not been following the news (as you have stated not the economist nor cnn have any credibility so I'm guessing Alo presidente is probably your only trustworthy source of news) and are buying religiously anything out of the red shirt capital of the third thinking world. I could document several of the things but I rather follow the example of HRH Juan Carlos,
No, I'm not shutting you up, facing lack of reasoning I rather leave the room. Long live the King!
Posted by: ric | Nov 28, 2007 6:19:07 PM
Nope, I never said you were from the U.S. I'm just pointing out that Chávez is being accused of having the same intentions that the U.S. government has consistently shown for the last hundred years, which seems deliciously ironic to me.
Not my intention to get Bush into this, and I certainly don't think there's a reason for bringing him up. As for your assertion that I'm looking at this in a "black-or-white" sort of fashion, I think it's ridiculous. There's definitely violence and anti-democratic tendencies in some supporters of both the government and the opposition. But in my comments I'm specifically addressing your claim that Chavez is a dictator-in-the-making and I find that evidence for that view is, to put it plainly, false or virtually non-existent.
As for your other point, I never stated that the Economist or CNN have no credibility, just that they are as biased as any other source of news, regardless of their claim to objectivity. I think it would be unreasonable and naive to believe that ANY source of news, from either side can be totally objective. As a matter of fact, all news sources have an agenda, the main difference is that established "Western" news providers are the only ones that don't acknowledge it. I really think you need to address the factual claims I made instead of accusing me of getting my news from "Alo Presidente".
Contrary to your assertions, I'm actually a Venezuelan abroad that watches Globovision (Anti-Chavez all the time, the main opposition channel) and also TeleSur, apart from keeping in contact on an almost daily basis with friends in both sides of the ideological divide. Any honest observer of our "conversation" with no ideological axe to grind can easily notice how I've given you fact after fact while all you do is make ridiculous references to the politburo and Alo Presidente. I leave it to the readers to determine which one of us has been showing a consistent "lack of reasoning".
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 28, 2007 10:11:47 PM
My ridiculous references are to make a point, you see, exposing your
absurd claims is part of making an argument but granted some readers, if you have not bored them to death by now, would like to read facts so for them:
Freedom of Speech:
1) In 2006, Reporters Without Borders ranked Venezuela 115th out of
168 countries in its global press freedom listing
2) When RCTV license expired, Chavez publicly stated: "It runs out
in March. So it's better that you go and prepare your suitcase and
look around for what you're going to do in March... There will be no
new operating license for this coupist TV channel called RCTV. The
operating license is over... So go and turn off the equipment," Why
he said that? Because RCTV supported a strike against him in 2003.
3) According to the International Press Institute, the Inter-American
Press Association and Human Rights Watch, Chávez tightened its grip
on the press in 2005, and groups close to the government, including
the Bolivarian Circles, hampered journalists’ ability to report.
4) Chávez’s government introduced harsher penalties for libel,
defamation and insult, which resulted in a growing number of
journalists appearing before the courts.
5) The National Assembly approved by a simple majority the
controversial Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and
Television, or gag law, which, in effect, makes the private radio and
television system part of the state, which controls its schedules,
programs and content. When RCTV license expired, Chavez publicly stated: "It runs out
in March. So it's better that you go and prepare your suitcase and
look around for what you're going to do in March... There will be no
new operating license for this coupist TV channel called RCTV. The
operating license is over... So go and turn off the equipment," Why
he said that? Because RCTV supported a strike against him in 2003.
Human Rights
1) Human Rights Watch has expressed concern in a personal letter to
Chávez over the safety of human rights defenders in Venezuela.
2) As of December 2004, Amnesty International had documented at least
14 deaths and at least 200 wounded during confrontations between anti-
Chávez demonstrators and National Guard, police, and other security
personnel in February and March 2004.
Authoritarianism
1)Chávez has achieved absolute control of all state institutions that
might check his power, and unrivaled political control.
2) Moreover, Chávez commands the institute that supervises elections,
the National Electoral Council. (I'm not including here all the
allegations of fraud since he came to office)
3) In “The Threat to Democracy in Venezuela and its Implications for
the Region and the United States” June 24, 2004, Miguel Diaz
includes statements that the Chávez government had crossed the line
by "selectively arresting opposition leaders, torturing some members
of the opposition (according to human rights organizations) and
encouraging, if not directing, its squads of Bolivarian Circles to
beat up members of Congress and intimidate voters — all with impunity"
4) Amnesty International reports that Venezuela lacks an independent
and impartial judiciary.
Expansionism
1) In August 2007, Chávez came in conflict with the Netherlands
concerning the Dutch Antilles. Chávez gave a number of public
speeches in which he said that the region ought to be 'freed from
colonialism' and claimed that every piece of land within 200 nautical
miles (370 km) of the Venezuelan coast belongs to Venezuela.
Not to mention all the economic support he has given to guerrillas
(FARC, Guatemala) and to opposition leaders sympathetic to his
Bolivarian dream (Peru, Mexico).
Posted by: ric | Nov 29, 2007 12:11:34 AM
Ric,
Would you explain us exactly what kind of economic support Chavez gave to opposition leaders in Mexico? Who were the leaders that received Chavéz' support? When did they receive it? What are your sources to argue that opposition leaders in Mexico received money from Chavez?
Are you refering to the center-left candidate of the PRD, to Cardenas, to the Zapatistas?
Posted by: Rodolfo Hernandez | Nov 29, 2007 9:16:34 AM
Did you even read my previous post? Why do you keep bringing up RCTV? As you mentioned above, they supported the coup. Do you think a TV channel that supports a coup d’etat against a democratically elected government should be allowed to operate? I am willing to bet that, wherever you are, your government would probably not even wait to close them up.
It's no secret, that, as I said before, most of the commercial press in Latin America is against Chavez. I'm not surprised to see the Inter American Press Association, which is an organization of the media owners of the Americas criticizing the supposed lack of freedom of expression in Venezuela. Miguel Henrique Otero, owner of El Nacional, well-known Venezuelan opposition newspaper is an active board member of IAPA. According to journalist Pascual Serrano, since its origins and foundation, in which the US State Department had a big role, IAPA has promoted anti-union and neoliberal economic policies in the region. According to Chilean journalist Hernan Uribe, IAPA, spearheaded by its former vicepresident Agustin Edwards (owner of conservative paper "El Mercurio" from Chile) orchestrated a powerful media campaign against Salvador Allende's government. During the Argentinian and Uruguayan dictatorships board members like Claudio Escribano (vice-director of argentinian daily “La Nacion”) and Danilo Arbilla never raised their voices against the atrocities committed, and, in the specific case of Arbilla, he even became the press director of Juan Maria Bordaberry’s dictatorship, which tortured, jailed and repressed journalists. In april 2003, the IAPA received $3.6 million from the Knight Foundation for Press Freedom Project, directed by anti-Chavez executive Alberto Ibargüen, a former director of the IAPA and member of the Miami Herald. I’m sorry, but if you’re going to quote a media tycoon press organization that has such dark history and whose ideological proclivities are so evident, I’m going to express my skepticism.
As for Reporters without Borders, the fact that they receive funding from the U.S. Government makes me, well…, skeptical too. Some information for you:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1865
“In spite of 14 months of stonewalling by the National Endowment for Democracy over a Freedom of Information Act request and a flat denial from RSF executive director Lucie Morillon, the NED has revealed that Reporters Without Borders received grants over at least three years from the International Republican Institute.”
Look at the following Al-Jazeera International piece on RCTV. I just love it when Jean Baptiste Damestoy, from Reporters without Borders argues that the RCTV “closing” violates freedom of expression, “ becauze zee major governments in zee world, that usually are democratic, are against zees kind of thing”. Powerful reason to declare any specific action “undemocratic”, don’t you think so? Apart from the fact that he forgot to mention that they also put food on his table. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOR-0vQAPm4
As for the torture of opposition figures, I have no idea who Miguel Diaz might be, but I really want to know the names of the Human Rights organizations that, according to him, are accusing the Chavez government of such a thing. As far as I know, nobody in the opposition has been tortured or “selectively arrested”, and as far as I know, there’s no evidence that the Bolivarian Circles have been beating up “members of congress” (wtf??) or ‘intimidating voters”. Voting so far has been clean and people have openly backed whoever they want to. If your claim is that the Chavez government needs to intimidate voters to get the high support they are getting you definitely have never been in Venezuela.
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 29, 2007 11:35:35 AM
I really don’t understand the way your reasoning works. An allegation of fraud, or abuse, if unsubstantiated is just that, an allegation. There have been many allegations by the enemies of Chavez, but when investigated, it has almost always turned out that allegations were false. Are you going to say now that Chavez stole the vote? That he isn’t really that popular? That his government is “illegitimate”? As I said before, the main problem in political Venezuelan culture is the refusal by the opposition to admit that his government is legitimate. Why do you think they tried every unconstitutional way to get him out first (a coup d’etat, a national oil lockout) and then finally settled for the referendum, which had always been contemplated in the Constitution? The opposition is fundamentally anti-democratic in its tactics and demands. They are using every means they can to stop the voting next week. Why? Why are they organizing demonstrations that turn out to be violent when they can go next week and vote against the reform. Are they afraid they will lose if they respect the democratic norms?
With respect with the economic support which you claim was given to the FARC and Guatemala (what is that, another terrorist group?) and that given to Peru and Mexico, I want to see your sources, please. As far as I know, those are rumors most likely manufactured by the U.S. State Department that have no substance.
And last, your point about “expansionism”. You either copied your first quote verbatim from somebody else’s anti-Chavez writings (in which case you are careless) or lifted it out from Wikipedia and selectively left out the most important part (in which case you are blatantly dishonest). Here is the quote from Wikipedia:
“In August 2007, Chávez came in conflict with the Netherlands concerning the Dutch Antilles. Chávez gave a number of public speeches in which he said that the region ought to be 'freed from colonialism' and claimed that every piece of land within 200 nautical miles (370 km) of the Venezuelan coast belongs to Venezuela. Since the Dutch Antilles are positioned 40 miles (64 km) off Venezuela, this was interpreted by some Dutch officials as a threat of invasion of Dutch sovereignty, and several political parties requested that the Dutch army be prepared for war, a VVD official referring to the Antilles as "the Dutch Falklands"[28] while other parties dismissed Chávez' speeches as populism with no real intention of invading the Dutch Antilles.[29] According to Radio Netherlands, Chávez was not referring to the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba but to the Aves island, adding that "...there is nothing to worry about as far as the Netherlands Antilles are concerned, but that doesn't fit in with the US's publicity campaign. The media leave out all this kind of information and simply report that Venezuela wants to expand its borders and, in doing so, is intent on swallowing up the Leeward Islands.[...] The Hague knows there is no claim to Aruba or the Netherlands Antilles, and that President Chávez has not made such a claim in any speech*.”
*^ De Roo, Jos (2007-08-23). Rumours of Venezuelan invasion of Netherlands Antilles. Radio Netherlands.
I leave it to the readers to draw the pertinent conclusions about your claims (and your character).
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 29, 2007 11:39:11 AM
Rodolfo,
During the run for the presidency and thru the program "solidaridad con america latina" specifically and only on Carillo puerto governed by the PRd
Sources from Ny Times, Wall street Journal, Financial Times, a magazine called processo.
Several mexican newspapers also detected activity from "celulas bolivarianas" at the manifestations of support when the campaign was active and after the elections to support the fraud allegations called the MMB and some (this is a long strech, I do not subscribe but it's been around) say that they financed the EPR and the bombing of some Pemex ducts to help rise the oil price as Mexico's oil is at the service of the US. The discourse of the bombing was "imperialist support" illegitimate government and fascist president (Calderon) and although this is Chavez's language it is also very common hard core left language.
Is no secret that Venezuela helps what they consider friendly causes or candidates in the region, and in any case I am not passing judgment on that, it just exemplifies his expansion vision some of the programs included a cornea initiative to help communities in the Mayan region, it is also well know that Nicaragua has received more than 500 million Dollars in support and the construction of a refinery of 2 billions is underway, Not documented but it is said that cristina Krichener was/is counting on the support, Ollanta Humala did not win in Peru but his opposition party remains strong and in good terms with both chavez and his bolivian puppet.
Pedro Correa's discurse now is not as moderate as the oil links and support from venezuela grow stronger.
It is not just Mexico, the allegations of the Farcs are not well documented but several sources (I'll try and find one bbc note when I have a time) questions venezuelas' arm support in concerted action of terrorist groups such as FARC, assisted by violent indigenous groups such as those in Bolivia, Guatemala Peru and Ecuador.
On his Five Nation tour as he called it hand in hand with Evo Morales Chavez said South America needed a united armed forces before referring to his actions in Buenos Aires as a protest against 'the presence in these South American lands of the head of the empire'. This when he also said if you are not with you are against me or something like that.
It also true that some of these facts are mixed with the lousy, almost infantile efforts of the bush admin to weaken Chavez influence and true be told it has helped him to be more an undeserved cult figure.
And pepito, ashh, I see, all the sources I provide are not just biased but completely dishonest while your sources are perfectly acceptable and objective. It must be all part of the conspiracy.
You are the one who's careless in the bit about expansionism I'm only including the actual content of Chavez's speech, not the commentary and opinions of diverse Dutch media. You asked for facts not subjective opinions.
Other source you would hate:
http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=230028
I think we were talking about Chavez, but hey thanks for questioning my character it always helps specially coming from someone who signs
whattheshitdoyoucare@yahoo.com
Posted by: ric | Nov 29, 2007 2:43:08 PM
rodolfo, the bbc one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7102929.stm
Posted by: ric | Nov 29, 2007 3:17:49 PM
No, Ric. You copied the paragraph exactly from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
and decided to leave out the rest. I also read what Chavez had said at the time in other news sources and it was evident for me (as for most of Venezuelans) that he was referring to Aves Island and not to the Dutch Antilles. Granted, there's always some idiotic (or malevolent) Western journalist that's going to take a quote like that and run along with it to support the idea that every third World country that has nationalistic policies is ruled by power-crazed dictators.
The fact that you call Evo Morales Chavez's "puppet" in Bolivia just tells me that you are full of shit. That and the lack of specific links for your allegations. This is a perfect example:
"Several mexican newspapers also detected activity from "celulas bolivarianas" at the manifestations of support when the campaign was active and after the elections to support the fraud allegations called the MMB and some (this is a long strech, I do not subscribe but it's been around) say that they financed the EPR and the bombing of some Pemex ducts to help rise the oil price as Mexico's oil is at the service of the US. The discourse of the bombing was "imperialist support" illegitimate government and fascist president (Calderon) and although this is Chavez's language it is also very common hard core left language."
What is this if not just unsubstantiated innuendo?
You also have to acknowledge the difference between helping friendly governments in the region, particularly the poorest ones without demanding that they change their policies(which I think is the kind of solidarity that should be encouraged in Latin America and which Venezuela practices no matter the political leanings of the governments being helped- witness Petrocaribe and tell me if that help is selective) and funding an opposition candidate or leader (something for which again, there's absolutely no proof).
As I said before, every source has a certain degree of bias, the difference is that you are hiding your accusations' lack of substance behind some prestigious names like the NYTimes (whose editors openly supported the coup d'etat, you can actually look up the editorial) or the Economist, whose stance in favor of free-market policies permeates every one of their opinions and even of their news reporting. So, yes, my sources are small and biased, while yours are big, authoritative, and also biased. What's new?
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 29, 2007 3:28:14 PM
And Ric:
Give the name of those Human Rights organizations that say Chavez's government is torturing the opposition. I'm dying to click on that link.
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 29, 2007 3:33:04 PM
"It is not just Mexico, the allegations of the Farcs are not well documented but several sources (I'll try and find one bbc note when I have a time) questions venezuelas' arm support in concerted action of terrorist groups such as FARC"
I clicked on your bcc link and found a (now outdated) article about Chavez's effort as a mediator to secure the release of 50 civilians kidnapped by the FARC in a hostage swap. Is this Venezuela's armed support of the FARC that you're referring to? God, you really are full of shit, aren't you?
Posted by: Pepito | Nov 29, 2007 3:40:37 PM
Exactly, I took it from that link and put only the part that refers to the actual content of Chavez's speech, not the commentary and opinions of diverse Dutch media. I repeat you asked for facts. He said what he said, the speech is traceable, the interpretation of the Dutch media is that, an interpretation.
when I said:
"Several mexican newspapers also detected activity from "celulas bolivarianas" I did include the link (is the one that you'd hate).
But here you are complaining about the sources and links I give and you haven't give us one to support your own claims, you have only given links to discredit my sources.
For instance you said " all the reporting about the supposed shootings at students a few weeks ago by a Chavista mob (it turned out that the opposition students were trying to set fire to a building inside UCV, the main University in Caracas with a group of pro- Chávez students inside and a couple of pro- Chávez people armed with guns came to rescue them)."
What reports?
or quoting you "They are doing everything they can to stop the referendum from happening, while European citizens and U.S. citizens for instance, don't even have a say in matters that are of equal or more importance to them. "
do you base that on rumors or what? or maybe you think you have the"biggest authoritative" opinion because you are Venezuelan?
about Evo and me calling him puppet and therefore according to you I am full of shit...
Chavez calls everybody puppets of the empire, does that means he's full of shit?
For the rest look it up, it'll take you a couple of google searches no more.
Posted by: ric | Nov 29, 2007 4:04:42 PM
Post a comment