Venezuela

dyslexia
Interesting situation down there but if you drive a car it will soon be causing some pain in your pocket.

From what I know the administration supported the coup but was severely criticised when that coup failed. We get about 15 % of our oil from them but the real problem is that the country is paralyzed and they are losing 50 million dollars a day. AS of today the military is still supporting Chavez so the country remains shut down.

What would you do dyslexia if you were Bush?

perception: i have no idea regarding what should be done, as i stated i have a problem just figuring out what is going on and what our (US) policy is.

dyslexia

Neither do I nor the administration---you have a communist leader who was elected and still has the support of all the really poor people who he made a lot of promises to but has not or can not deliver on. While he sits hunkered down in his palace not knowing what to do the country is going up in smoke. Today the other south american countries issued a statement supporting democracy in venezuela but not supporting Chavez. While the military supports him nothing can be done.

The current US policy toward the Venezuela situation is pretty much "Lets just wait and see what happens ... we have other priorities at the moment"

The next few days are critical in the development of events there. Domestic petroleum, including cooking gas as well as transportation-related petroleum, is nearly exhausted. The crippling National Strike has resulted in food shortages that will only get worse under current conditions. A major Rally is planned for The 19th, and another for the 20th. Widespread shortages of critical goods are likely to energize the opposition supporters, and, while Chavez appears to have firm control of the Military Upper Command, there are disturbing rumbles of opposition sentiment within the ranks ... up to and including Field, and possibly even Staff, Grade Officers. Though uncharacterized by significant violence so far, the situation could well become quite ugly by the end of this week. Direct military action against the populace is not assured of intended effect despite there being large numbers of hired mercenaries on hand or on call. Whatever happens, the effects of this debacle will be felt not just in Venezuela but throughout the developed world for some time to come.

Timber

You are absolutely correct when you state that at this moment our policy has been reduced to "Lets just wait and see what happens"

How can any administration have a coherent policy when some little tin horn idiologue can take over a country by promising the world and then sit hunkered down in his palace while the country is torn apart when he can't deliver on his pie-in the sky promises.

This should be a lesson for all those who would advocate idealistic social solutions before the time is right and I'm not saying there will ever be a right time---just that idealism is OK in very small doses with the right timing.

Several things in this thread make me feel awkward.

While Hugo Chavez was democratically elected to be President of Venezuela, he has:
1) A history of Coup attempts to seize power: he's no democrat.
2) Manipulated the law and the following elections to get a personal hold on power.
3) Created a civil "army" of thugs-supporters, very similar to the "squadraccie" of Mussolini's Fascist regime, ready to beat opposers and put the buildings of critical media on fire.

At this moment, it's very possible that a huge majority of the population opposes him. While it is true that the original opposers to Chavez were only the industrialists, the rich and a part of the middle class, it is clear that a long running general strike as the one in Venezuela could not be sustained on this social groups only. It is a revolt of the people.

I think the concept of a US masterminded "Coup d'Etat", referring to the attempts of a military takeover after the Chavez thugs killed two protesters a few months ago, is strictly chavista propaganda, echoed by supposed left wingers elsewhere.

The US policy isn't strictly "Let's just wait and see what happens". The official US declaration that Chavez should call for new elections tells Venezuelans, clearly, that the US is against their President.
It's good that the American government did little besides that. It would probably had been better that they kept quiet.
The ousting of Chavez is a matter of Venezuelans, not of good willing, selfappointed, world cops.

I'm glad Fbaezer weighed in here--i was hoping he would. I had suspected some of what he wrote here, having read accounts of the street violence preceding Chavez' election. The problem is, however, that the US media tend to ignore Latin America unless and until something "newsworthy" (read, sells papers/tv adverts) happens. I rather felt that Fbaezer would have a cogent slant on events, given that the Latin American press pays far more attention to what happens in the entire hemisphere rather than simply in their respective home countries. Thanks, Boss . . .

Oh and, thanks, Perception, i really didn't want to hear that about gasoline prices . . . i had no illusions on the subject, i just prefer to bury my head in the sand on matters like that which affect me but which i cannot affect . . . :wink:

And, I'm always happy to read Timber's well-informed perspective too. Thanks Timber.

I don't think the policy is a muddled as you've made it out to be. There seems to have been some confusion within the Whitehouse as to the reading of the Constitution of Venezuela and provisions for early elections.

All of the recent Whitehouse statements have said that any changes should be done democratically and within the framework of their Constitution.

On Dec 13th apparently it was believed that their Constitution didn't bar any early election (and it doesn't). The confusing part is that they apparently operate on the provision that they can only do what the Constitution allows (as opposed to being able to do whatever the Constitution doesn't prohibit..) and their Constitution specifies that elections are to be held next August. The Whitehouse apparently realized that after being questioned on Friday and adjusted their position on the early elections because of that.

Good precisions, Fishin'.

Setanta

Head in sand---noted))))))))))

How many times has this scenario played out? Setanta with his fantastic memory and knowledge of history will be able to tell us exactly.

What are the odds, from what we know, that a strong personality will emerge, oust Chavez and avert total national catastrophe?

It is not unreasonable to predict total chaos for about a month---then one faction or the other will gain control but only after a very bloody civil war----then what?

The poor people become poorer----all because they were deceived by one man. How long will it take for the country to rebuild?

Actually, Perception, i think this one in which history will likely not be a good guide, and this is why i think this to be the case. For more than a century and a half, politics played out in the manner which Gabriel Garcia Marquez describes in One Hundred Years of Solitude and The Autumn of the Dictator--one elitist faction v. all the others, not substantially different than what i've described elsewhere as the clan/tribal rivalries common in the middle east. But two things have occurred which have broken that pattern. The first is the introduction of marxism/communism, which has provided an entré for people like Chavez, if such an individual is able to obtain the necessary popular support. This has intoduced a "wild card" into the "family squabble" character in the continuing cycle of coups d'états which became a stereotyped image of the "banana republic." The other significant factor is the political dynamic of Central America, with more than a half-century of stable, peaceful change of government in Costa Rica--while civil wars raged in Nicaragua and El Salvador, for which peaceful solutions were eventually arrived at. I'm not so facile as to say everything in those two nations is peaches and cream, nor have such a low opinion of my fellow posters at this site--but both of these contrasting examples have given to the peoples of Latin America, i believe, reason to hope that deep, divisive issues within a national polity can, eventually at least, be resolved with political violence brought to an end. Of course, narco-terrorists and narcotics supported "national liberation" movements have thrown another, very ugly factor into the mix, but, my bottom line is that Latin America has been in the throes of significant change in it's historical social and political patterns, and i watch the events with great interest, and don't find historical parallels to suggest to me what may happen next. I ache for the people of Venezuela, and hope for the best for them. Round and round she goes, and where she stops, nobody knows . . .

Well there you have it folks---another country brought to it's knees by one little man----different from Saddam but yet similar results for the people of the country.

Grammar alert, here, Setanta ... immaterial to the thread or to your otherwise well-expressed thought, but for reasons shared between us, I delight in bringing this to your attention ... multiple self-referrencing plurals simply are not acceptable!



timber

Ah, but it is good french, Boss, a language in which multiple plurals and negatives are not only acceptable, but required . . .

I disagree with any "little man" theory.

Tyrants, dictators and caudillos don't just "appear". There have to be certain historical conditions for them to surge.

In the case of Venezuela, it was the widespread corruption of the traditional parties (Christian Democrats and Left-Center populists) that lead to public disenchantment with politics and politicians. In fact, before Chávez appeared on the electoral scene, the top candidate in the polls was Irene Saez, an ex-Miss Universe, major of the city of Chacao, who ran on an Independent ticket.

Before that, Venezuela was seen as one of the more stable democratic nations in the continent. The status Costa Rica has today, for instance.

What made Venezuelans do the bongee jump? I believe it is a combination of excessive dependance on oil -which led them to keep the economy "protected" from globalization, in favor of industrialist cronies-, the persistence of social differences -bad income distribution- and a growing distance between the political class and the people, which led to an "us" against "them" attitude in both sides.

Had it not been Chávez, who knows what the ex-Miss Universe might have done. She was pro-American, but I doubt she was efficient. Probably we'd have just a different kind of chaos (perhaps mainly the poor, not mainly the middle class, trying to overthrow the government).

I don't disagree that certain conditions must exist to allow a change of regime by the people----would it make any difference to you if I said that Chavez came to power by deceiving the poor people----when he did not deliver on his promises ----he became a little insignifcant crook in my mind----just my opinion.