Follow Up
Last night, various major news agencies ran headlines that were shocking. They declared that Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, was attempting to alter the constitution of his country so that he could remain in power indefinitely. There was, at the time, no mention of the fact that the actual alteration being proposed would only allow Chavez to run for re-election without term limitations. Most of them had simply jumped the gun before bothering to read the details, having since amended their reports. This morning, there is barely a mention if it anywhere to be found on the front pages of major news websites.
After reading those initial reports, I wrote an entry yesterday that lambasted the move, exclaiming that there is no excuse for tolerating the diminishment of the people’s power in any nation, be it socialistically based or not. To my discredit, having read those initial reports, I reacted before waiting to read, in detail, what was being proposed.
When it comes to Hugo Chavez, there is, quite obviously, going to be heated debate. Some believe that he is a dictator in waiting, looking only to usurp Venezuelan democracy. Others argue that he is trying to ensure that external influencing does not lead to upheaval in Venezuela and that the landslide majority that he gained in the last federal election, which was overseen by international observers, speaks volumes about the democratic support that he enjoys from the populace. Then there is the matter of the closing of RCTV, a television station that was complicit in the coup that attempted to oust Chavez from power. Human Rights Watch called the closing of the station a blatant attack on freedom of speech and the press, while others pointed to the fact that were RCTV to exist in any Western democracy that it would have been shut down long before RCTV’s license expired given that it had acted in conjunction with those known to be supported by foreign interest groups seeking the deposition of Chavez.
The underlying reality here is that we are talking about a man, and a country, that has to deal with factors that most do not. When Canadians go to the polls they don’t have to wonder whether a certain party is being bankrolled by foreign interests whose goal is to secure a government friendly to their economic interests. In fact, were it discovered that a major Canadian political party were being covertly financed by, for example, the National Endowment For Democracy, the wrath of the Canadian media and people would be incendiary. It must also not be forgotten that if such a thing occurred, that party would be banned from the process and thoroughly investigated.
Like other Latin American statesmen in the past, there is no doubt that Chavez has become paranoid to some degree given the external forces arrayed against him. While it is vitally important that political opposition parties are allowed to freely exist and partake in the political process, there can be no excuse for accepting covert support from the likes of the United States to help them in their bid to oust another party from power. Because that is also entirely undemocratic and wholly abusive of the Venezuelan people’s trust and belief in the process itself.
But that is the reality of Venezuela, and there are precedents stretching back to the early 50’s that support the growing paranoia that is displayed by men like Chavez.
Guatemala, Cuba, El Salvador, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia – these are but a few examples of countries that have endured external foreign influencing. Some of them fought against it, others were led by individuals backed, and often put in power, by foreign powers, and others simply endured high crimes committed by groups covertly funded and armed by the likes of the CIA. Like it or not, that is the reality of 20th Century Latin American history.
When I think of the funding of Venezuelan opposition groups by organizations like the NED, the first word that comes to mind is ‘bananas’. The reason? Because if a democratically elected leader, in this case Jacobo Árbenz, can be removed from power and replaced by an American puppet and strongman (Carlos Armas) to protect the interests of a US fruit company (now Chiquita Brands International), then there is only one world that is applicable – and that’s ‘bananas’. (Investigate Operation PBSUCCESS for more information of the subject).
It is easy enough for us to paint the actions of Latin American leaders as suspect because we have never been in their shoes, nor had to deal with the ramifications of other nations seriously interfering with our political processes to such a degree that they would go so far as to train murderers to intimidate and kill innocents to preserve or strengthen their influence.
As for Chavez, Venezuelan oil, the belief that he wants to emulate Castro, the nationalization of various Venezuelan industries, changes to the constitution, the championing of the Bolivarian movement, and a whole host of other matters – ask yourself one simple question. Do you believe that it will lead to his government arming death squads to quell political opposition? Do you believe that Venezuela is on the brink of disaster, and that Chavez is a tyrant in disguise waiting only to paint the streets of Caracas red with the blood of his political adversaries? If that is the case, and you do believe that that is a possibility, place into context what took place in El Salvador at the hands of those backed and trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Put into context the assassination of Monseñor Romero and others that dared to speak out against those that worked to secure the interests of a foreign power while selling their own people out.
Hugo Chavez’s government’s human rights record makes that of Saudi Arabia look demonic by comparison. In fact, the same goes for Castro’s Cuba. And yet nary is a word said about what transpires in Saudi Arabia. The United States is on the brink of gifting the Saudis, and several others in the region, some $20 billion dollars in military aid, and yet their human rights record is abysmal. In Venezuela, women can vote, hell, they can even drive cars. The same cannot be said of Saudi Arabia, where no one can vote. Venezuela does not represent a military threat to the United States, while the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudis, not to mention that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
In the last Venezuelan federal election, Chavez received 62.84% of the vote. His closest rival, Manuel Rosales, received 36.9%. In all, 75% of eligible voters participated in the election, which, by comparison, puts us to shame with regards to our own participation in the last federal election. And yet our outlook on what transpires in Venezuela is always suspect.
I’ll not sit here and say that Hugo Chavez is by any means perfect, or that democracy in his country needs to be safeguarded and transparent to ensure his legitimacy and the legitimacy of Venezuelan democracy itself. But that said, I will also not condemn the man out of hand given what he’s been made to deal with as it pertains to not only campaigning against political opposition that is bankrolled by a foreign power, but the very real breach of national security that such a reality represents.
As far as I am aware, and if you have information to the contrary please do feel free to provide it in the comments, no one in Venezuela is being dragged from their bed at night and ‘disappeared’. While there are real human rights concerns to consider, let us not forget to apply context to them with regards to our own actions, especially to do with the War On Terror. Unlike the United States, Venezuela does not run numerous facilities where individuals are held outside of the auspices of international law or tortured. They also are not guilty of rendering individuals to countries know for their use of torture and then lying about it. Unlike the United States, Venezuela is a signatory of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, which was ratified while Chavez was in office.
The truth is that what is currently transpiring in Venezuela with regards to constitutional amendments is a slippery slope. Then again, it must not be overlooked that we adhere to a political system in which there are no term limits and that any person, even if they have already held the office of Prime Minister, has the right to run for, and hold, that office again. Obviously, Venezuela’s political construct differs from ours, and as I said yesterday, it would do Chavez a world of good to perhaps look at the reformation of Venezuela’s political system to better enact the changes that he is seeking rather than doing it in such a way that raises suspicions.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 16th, 2007 at 12:17 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
You also don’t hear a whole lot about Chavez helping America’s poor by selling them cheap oil in the winter. It beats me how major news sources can claim to be unbiased.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
“When Canadians go to the polls they don’t have to wonder whether a certain party is being bankrolled by foreign interests whose goal is to secure a government friendly to their economic interests.”
You’re right, we don’t have to wonder - we know it. Well, the really cynical people like me know it, at any rate. Certainly it would be more surprising if this _hasn’t_ happened at least once in the last forty years.
I’m a Hugo fan, based mostly on the logic that anyone Bush doesn’t like, and Pat Robertson wants to assassinate, and is not named Osama bin Laden, is probably someone I want to get to know better. Plus anybody that can stand up to Big Oil is a hero in my book. Just imagine all the bribery, threats, and manipulations that have already been thrown at Chavez, and he’s still holding his ideological ground. We haven’t had a leader like that since, um, okay, drawing a blank here…
And you’re right, Matt, considering all the shenanigans that have been perpetrated in Central and South America in the last century by the United States, I’d say Chavez deserves the benefit of the doubt. I’d like anyone to challenge this statement: Chavez is better for Venezuela (and the world) than Bush is for America.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I think you took the right route - a middle ground between the US and official Venezuelan line. But simply because the political system is different doesn’t mean we should accept undemocratic actions and dialogue. Chavez has blatantly supported Castro, which would be fine were it not for his ignoring human rights abuses in the country. I completely disagree with the US position on Cuba, but I also disagree with acting as if the country is a free and democratic society when it clearly is not. I don’t think Chavez is dangerous, or a terrorist or anything that many in the US government would accuse him of, but I would say that he does not care about democracy. As long as he is elected and has full power, he is happy to keep democracy alive. However, he seems determined to trim the powers and abilities of any opposition to speak out. In this case, I would not support Chavez as I would not any leader that believes power should rest in their hands alone.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
[quote comment="23338"]I’d like anyone to challenge this statement: Chavez is better for Venezuela (and the world) than Bush is for America.[/quote]
Americans Satisfied With the Lives They Lead
Majority Say Things Have Improved in Past Five Years, Even Stronger Majority Expects Things to Improve in Next Five Years
Overall, Americans are definitely satisfied with the life they lead. Almost all (94%) say they are satisfied, with over half of U.S. adults (56%) saying they are very satisfied with the life they lead and 38 percent somewhat satisfied. Just six percent are not satisfied with the life they lead. This level of satisfaction is up slightly from earlier this decade: in 2005, nine out of ten were satisfied and in 2003, 91 percent were satisfied with the life they led.
While this overall satisfaction with life is across all age groups, there is a generational difference with the level of satisfaction. Echo Boomers (those aged 18-30) are evenly split with 48 percent saying they are very satisfied and 47 percent who are somewhat satisfied. Matures (those aged 62 and older), on the other hand, are clearly of a different mind as over two-thirds (69%) are very satisfied while just one-quarter (24%) are somewhat satisfied with the life they are leading.
I’ll bet you $100 that those numbers are better than Venezuela’s.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
[quote comment="23338"]
I’m a Hugo fan, based mostly on the logic that anyone Bush doesn’t like, and Pat Robertson wants to assassinate, and is not named Osama bin Laden, is probably someone I want to get to know better.[/quote]
That’s some terrible logic.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
This reminds me of a documentary I saw on the years prior to and during the beginning of the Coup d’etat in Chile.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
kinda sorta.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
A long, yet interesting read on Venezuela, courtesy of ZNet:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=13351
Mr. Gephardt, how do I know you didn’t make those numbers up? Also, most people can lead incredibly stressful and unhappy lives, yet still deem them “satisfactory” because they’ve put a down payment on a house and amassed some stuff to put in it. Suffice to say, your argument isn’t all that reliable.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Talk to me about American satisfaction and then talk to me about what we see in our future. Medicare, health care, social security, deficit, credit crisis, etc. All looming as imminent disasters.
Those are much less of a worry in Venezuela under Chavez.
Holy shit, I just said something positive about the man.
I read a little while ago that the US Congress is toying with laws and regulations that would basically offer “asylum” to wealthy Venezuelans fleeing Venezuela fearing that their fortunes might be seized by the government.
I always hope for moderation of politics in latin america without the interference of the US. I was just in Bolivia where Evo Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism party is in power. Within that goverment you can find people from all shades of the political spectrum from communists to leftovers from military regimes in important positions simply because they know how things work.
I would imagine that Venezuela is much the same. The US just needs to let it be for it to have the best chance at staying moderate.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
[quote comment="23347"]A long, yet interesting read on Venezuela, courtesy of ZNet:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=13351
Mr. Gephardt, how do I know you didn’t make those numbers up? Also, most people can lead incredibly stressful and unhappy lives, yet still deem them “satisfactory” because they’ve put a down payment on a house and amassed some stuff to put in it. Suffice to say, your argument isn’t all that reliable.[/quote]
Here’s a link to the study:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=796
Also, please note the trends moving up over the past 5 years.
Seems far more conclusive than the “GW Bush is ruining the world because I say so” crowd.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
[quote comment="23341"][quote comment="23338"]I’d like anyone to challenge this statement: Chavez is better for Venezuela (and the world) than Bush is for America.[/quote][quote comment]
Overall, Americans are definitely satisfied with the life they lead. Almost all (94%) say they are satisfied, with over half of U.S. adults (56%) saying they are very satisfied with the life they lead and 38 percent somewhat satisfied. Just six percent are not satisfied with the life they lead. This level of satisfaction is up slightly from earlier this decade: in 2005, nine out of ten were satisfied and in 2003, 91 percent were satisfied with the life they led.[/quote][/quote]
Dude, this is crap. Satisfaction is completely relative– an American saying he is “some-what satisfied” would certainly change his opinion if he moved to say, the Congo, and had to try to earn a living there. I’m guessing that his former opinion of “some-what satisfied” life in America would be changed to “There’s no place like home; there’s no place like home; there’s no place like home” after living in a place like the Congo.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
It’s also crap because the original statement asks how Bush is for America, compared to Chavez for Venezuela. It said nothing about satisfaction with their life. Bush is much less popular in America than Chavez is in Venezuela.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Yeah- D.Lilly nailed it there. As much as Americans may be satisfied with their lives, I believe the appropriate term for the future will be “blowback”. And that’s not even factoring in the debt to China…
August 16th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
If Bush were trying to do that in America this would be an entirely different thread, I know you keep saying you don’t hate America but sometimes your words speak louder than your words
August 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I heard a funny quote about politicians and diapers. They should be changed often, and much for the same reason.
My friend was a university student in Canada when Chavez’s “great socialist revolution” came to power. It devastated my friend’s family, his grandmother fled into exile, members of his family were arrested and disappeared. Their bank accounts were frozen and some assets seized.
He didn’t live opulently like some mega-rich, spoiled bourgeoise (sp?). His parents were simply professors. He was lucky to come to Canada to study and work on his PhD.
Those who refused to sign loyalty oaths to Chavez new government were subject to stringent monetary and travel restrictions.
My friend (he was too proud to ask for help from his Canadian friends at the time) was reduced to picking bottles out of the recycling can just to scrounge enough change for food.
Canadian laws (at the time) prohibited him from working off campus, and he did have an on-campus job, but it wasn’t enough to pay the rent, school and money he was sending home to help his family.
He hates Chavez and the devastation that has occurred within his country. He admits it wasn’t perfect before, but now, violence is more rampant, and Chavista gangs (according to him) will physically assault (or break and enter homes and cause destruction) anyone who voices public dissent against Chavez.
There are less and less checks on Chavez’s power. The courts are weak and industry is being nationalized.
What would people say if Bush could be re-elected an indefinite amount of times? (Sounds silly, but then again, a lot of people thought 2004 was a lock for the democrats.) Why is it okay for Chavez but not Bush?
I think all politicians should have term limits.
If you want to criticize U.S. foreign policy, fine, but Chavez is hardly a “good guy”
August 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
[quote comment="23423"]
What would people say if Bush could be re-elected an indefinite amount of times? (Sounds silly, but then again, a lot of people thought 2004 was a lock for the democrats.) Why is it okay for Chavez but not Bush?
[/quote]
It’s no more ok for Chavez then it would be for Bush or was for Jean Chretien. The thing is, there are arguments both for and against term limits. On the one hand, they prevent someone like Bush from serving 3 terms (if people are stupid enough to keep voting for him), but on the other hand, they can force good leaders to be replaced with bad ones, even if they have the support of the public. I don’t see this change as something to get really upset about. If people keep electing Chavez, well, that’s democracy, and we should all know that democracy aint perfect.
August 18th, 2007 at 2:12 am
“they can force good leaders to be replaced with bad ones, even if they have the support of the public.”
Maybe I am just too cynical to believe good politicians exist.
Everything is about self-interest and “what have you done for me lately?”
power corrupts (ugh, such a cliche). There is no such thing as a benevolent leader who can rule indefinitely. Instead of bloody insurrection and coups we have elections.
The best kind of leader is one who elevates his people to greatness and is an enabler of noble causes, but who basks not in his success and dreams only of being unburdened with the responsibilities of state.
And there are millions of people out there who want to rule. If we limit one, the many will follow.
Think of it this way, if Hillary Clinton wins, America will have been ruled by a Bush or Clinton for more than 20 years consecutively. If that doesn’t frighten you then you aren’t paying attention. The republic was founded in opposition to a monarchy, but here we have a dynasty forming within our lifetimes.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
[quote comment="23439"]“they can force good leaders to be replaced with bad ones, even if they have the support of the public.”
Maybe I am just too cynical to believe good politicians exist.
[/quote]
I think they do, but they mostly aren’t in positions of much power, at least not in Canada or the US. But when I said “good leaders,” I was speaking relatively. I don’t think many here would argue that Bill Clinton wasn’t better than his successor. Maybe if there weren’t term limits in the US, George W. Bush would never have been elected. I don’t know if things would be better than they are now, but maybe.
[quote]
Think of it this way, if Hillary Clinton wins, America will have been ruled by a Bush or Clinton for more than 20 years consecutively. If that doesn’t frighten you then you aren’t paying attention. The republic was founded in opposition to a monarchy, but here we have a dynasty forming within our lifetimes.[/quote]
Two terms for Hillary followed by two terms for Jeb Bush makes 36 years, I think. Frightening indeed.
August 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I have to wonder if this piece would show the same implicit support for the blatant deconstruction of democratic institutions in Venezuala if the regime weren’t ideologically aligned with socialism.
This kind of power consolidating deconstruction has been witnessed time and time again - so many African countries have followed the same path, and never with pleasant end results - at least in my memory of modern history. And while this entry claims to attempt a balanced representation of this argument - it is loaded with implicit sympathies and support that I think reflect a deeper ideological statement.