Venezuela Watch

My admittedly very narrow denial, based on the fact of Hitler's election is ceartainly no worse than Blatham;s equally narrow affirmation that Chavez is a democratic leader, based on the fact of his first election. You guys can't expect to have it both ways.

Blatham is attempting to restrict the discussion to a very narrow ground in which he can maintain the comforting illusion (and it is illusion) that truth is on his side. However, going back to Blatham's original post in qwuestion, I remind him of the following;

It isn't just about oil or the interests of corporatiions.

There is not an adequate basis on which to believe that the Chavez government in Venezuela is truly democratic or sustained by the will of its people.

BS george. He has an election and a referendum behind him. The burden falls upon you (or anyone else) to demonstrate how that process was so faulty as to be invalid.

Not to mention Bush's "election(s)."

A democratically elected Socialist government that works is a capitalists worst nightmare and they will do and say ANYTHING to f**k it up.

p.s. I am not a socialist.

OK by me if you all see Chavez as a democratic leader of an effective socialist government that will be good for Venezuela and the great majority of Venezuelans - and protect the libertuies if its people. I believe the truth is very far from all of these elements, and that is obvious to all serious commentators and observers. However if you chose to believe otherwise, it is OK by me.

So sayeth George, of Fox News.

George, at least the Chavez regime will not do what other Latin American regimes have done since the Conquest(s): favor the very small "european" upper classes at the expense of the vast majority of "Indian" peasants and proletarians.

No, He will do the reverse - which is just as bad,

Chavez is an authoritarian pseudo populist in the tradition of Juan Peron of Argentina and the recent rulers of Peru and Equador. This is a far more common source of misrule in Latin America in the last century than the variant to which you refer.

Chavez will set the economic and social structures of Venezuela back a generation or two -- all to advance his personal hold on power. He is a retrograde tyrant.

However you are certainly free to rationalize this all you wish - no matter what the price may be in terms of the required suspension of rational thought and common sense.

George -- you and I (and probably blatham) agree that Chavez is not the president Venzuela needs right now. Nevertheless, he is the president Venezuelans voted into office through free elections, and voted to keep in office in a free referendum. Admittedly, the opposition alleged that the results had been forged. But independent observers have not confirmed those allegations. At least that's what I gather from Googling the usual suspects for the status of `independent observer'. Neither Amnesty, nor the Organization of American States, nor the CIA factbook have reported problems with either the election or the referendum. With this in mind, may I ask on what specific basis you are calling Chavez a tyrant? Obviously the mere fact that you and I despise him does not make the case.

And that is it. How does the US get what it desires while remaining true to its own founding political and moral principles? That is a question which presents itself again and again with this administration precisely because it continually sets aside those political and moral principles, yet insisting at the same time that their motivation is those principles.

I mentioned earlier the preposterous (actually, despicable is a better term) proposition inherent in Rice's statement of this administration

To quote Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy (on torture, from the New Yorker piece... http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact )

I wonder if Blatham also opposed the rhetoric by government officials, the economic sanctions they instituted and the popular condemnation all posited against the former Nationalist government of South Africa. The nationalist party came to power in that country soon after WWII in an undenaibly free and popular election and quickly instituted what became known as a policy of Apartheidt among the White, Colored, and Bantu races, as they called them. The nationalist party remained in power in a series of elections over several decades. Would Blatham describe this regime as authoritarian and tyrannical?

But what policy of Chavez or Chavez's Movimiento Quinta República party or the five coalition parties that form the administration would you describe as comparable with South Africa's National Party's Apartheid policy? What, precisely, is the main criticism about Chavez?

Mine is that he is exploiting Venezuela's immense natural wealth in a way that will degrade economic life in the country, and contribute to future debt, low productivity and needless class struggle -- all of which will benefit no one in Venezuela except Hugo Chavez. We have seen the pattern before - Peron did it in Argentina, and the effects on both economic life and the development of stable, democratic political structures are all bad and long-lasting.

Why do you care? Or is this a reason to "Help them".

"needless class struggle"? A specialty of the World Bank and IMF. South of the border the people have had enough. They want a fair shake. To what extreme's will international corporate fascists go to keep people down? Pretty far judging from history. Big change in Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela and spreading. And not a Pinochet in sight among the new leadership. What's Exxon gonna do?

Yea, what are international bankers going to do when people find out were better of without them?????

The International banks in question were founded to, among other things, give developing countries access to capital without the (only until then) alternative of selling off their basic industriies and resources to foreign investors. The countries you cite all have the option to get the capital they desire through either of these means or even by frugal management of their own affairs and savings. Don't blame the bankers for wishing to see the loans they make paid off one day.

"South of the Border" most of the nations have squandered their natural wealth through corruption, protectionist economic policies, and political instability that stifled investment. Chile is perhaps the sole exception to that rule.

BOLIVIA, THE POSTER CHILD FOR HOW WORLD BANK/IMF POLICIES FAIL


Consider the case two years ago, when Bolivia privatized the water system of its third largest city, Cochabamba. World Bank officials told the
Bolivian President, point blank, that if the country didn't privatize the water it would be cut out of the Bank's debt relief program, a decision affecting billions of dollars. The government complied, leasing the water system to a subsidiary of Bechtel Enterprises, the California-based construction giant. Within weeks Bechtel raised water rates for the poor by as much as double or more, forcing people earning $60 per month to pay $15 just to keep water coming from the tap. The water rate hikes were met with massive public protests and the familiar response of a President declaring martial law to protect the company's interests. Eventually the protests forced Bechtel to leave.

Bank and IMF economists are quick to blame such failures on faulty implementation or a lack of public patience rather than on any inherent problem with the policies themselves. For South Americans the message is essentially, "Just bang your head against the wall a little bit longer and the pain will stop." What those who live with these policies know, and what the Bank and IMF fail to understand, is that along with foreign corporate ownership comes the loss of local democratic control over basic services. Bechtel's arrogance was no surprise, nor was the Bolivian government's willingness to use tear gas and bullets to protect the company's contract.

Which basic services we want to place in public hands and which we want to place in private ones is among the most fundamental policy debates a nation faces. The U.S. has that same debate everyday on issues such as health care, schools, and power. South Americans are communicating in the strongest of terms that they are tired of having that debate decided and that control taken away by economists a hemisphere away. The message coming from the streets and the ballot boxes of our southern neighbors is also a simple one, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?"

http://www.democracyctr.org/newsletter/vol45.htm
__________________________________________________________________________