Venezuela, An Imaginary Threat
Obama is maintaining a hostile policy towards Hugo Chávez – which will cost the US friendships elsewhere in Latin America
US-Latin American relations fell to record lows during the George Bush years, and there have been hopes - both north and south of the border - that President Barack Obama will bring a fresh approach. So far, however, most signals are pointing to continuity rather than change.
Obama started off with an unprovoked verbal assault on Venezuela. In an interview broadcast by the Spanish-language television station Univision on the Sunday before his inauguration, he accused Hugo Chávez of having "impeded progress in the region" and "exporting terrorist activities".
These remarks were unusually hostile and threatening even by the previous administration's standards. They are also untrue and diametrically opposed to the way the rest of the region sees Venezuela. The charge that Venezuela is "exporting terrorism" would not pass the laugh test among almost any government in Latin America.
José Miguel Insulza, the Chilean president of the Organisation of American States, was speaking for almost all the countries in the hemisphere when he told the US Congress last year that "there is no evidence" and that no member country, including the US, had offered "any such proof" that Venezuela supported terrorist groups.
Nor do the other Latin American democracies see Venezuela as an obstacle to progress in the region. On the contrary, President Lula da Silva of Brazil, along with several other presidents in South America, has repeatedly defended Chávez and his role in the region. Just a few days after Obama denounced Venezuela, Lula was in Venezuela's southern state of Zulia, where he emphasised his strategic partnership with Chávez and their common efforts at regional economic integration.
Obama's statement was no accident. Whoever fed him these lines very likely intended to send a message to the Venezuelan electorate before last Sunday's referendum that Venezuela won't have decent relations with the US so long as Chávez is their elected president. (Voters decided to remove term limits for elected officials, paving the way for Chávez to run again in 2013.)
There is definitely at least a faction of the Obama administration that wants to continue the Bush policies. James Steinberg, number two to Hillary Clinton in the state department, took a gratuitous swipe at Bolivia and Venezuela during his confirmation process, saying that the US should provide a "counterweight to governments like those currently in power in Venezuela and Bolivia which pursue policies which do not serve the interests of their people or the region."
Another sign of continuity is that Obama has not yet replaced Bush's top state department official for the western hemisphere, Thomas Shannon.
The US media plays the role of enabler in this situation. Thus the Associated Press ignores the attacks from Washington and portrays Chávez's response as nothing more than an electoral ploy on his part. In fact, Chávez had been uncharacteristically restrained. He did not respond to attacks throughout the long US presidential campaign, even when Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden called him a "dictator" or Obama described him as "despotic" - labels that no serious political scientist anywhere would accept for a democratically elected president of a country where the opposition dominates the media. He wrote it off as the influence of South Florida on US presidential elections.
But there are few if any presidents in the world that would take repeated verbal abuse from another government without responding. Obama's advisers know that no matter what this administration does to Venezuela, the press will portray Chávez as the aggressor. So it's an easy, if cynical, political calculation for them to poison relations from the outset. What they have not yet realised is that by doing so they are alienating the majority of the region.
There is still hope for change in US foreign policy toward Latin America, which has become thoroughly discredited on everything from the war on drugs to the Cuba embargo to trade policy. But as during the Bush years, we will need relentless pressure from the south. Last September the Union of South American Nations strongly backed Bolivia's government against opposition violence and destabilisation. This was very successful in countering Washington's tacit support for the more extremist elements of Bolivia's opposition. It showed the Bush administration that the region was not going to tolerate any attempts to legitimise an extra-legal opposition in Bolivia or to grant it special rights outside of the democratic political process.
Several presidents, including Lula, have called upon Obama to lift the embargo on Cuba, as they congratulated him on his victory. Lula also asked Obama to meet with Chávez. Hopefully these governments will continue to assert - repeatedly, publicly and with one voice - that Washington's problems with Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela are Washington's problems, and not the result of anything that those governments have done. When the Obama team is convinced that a "divide and conquer" approach to the region will fail just as miserably for this administration as it did for the previous one, then we may see the beginnings of a new policy toward Latin America.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
94 Comments so far
Show AllLet's see; Venesuela sends us cheap fuel oil for the poor, bad guys. Saudi Arabia sends us 15 highjackers with box cutters, good guys. That said it is more than propaganda that the FARC ( F...ing A..holes Ruining Colombia) hides out in Chavez's turf ! lf Chavez has faith in his people and his revolution he should be willing to step down and pass the baton. Our founding fathers felt that change of of leadership is necessary to keep a system from becoming stagnant.
Earl,
Nice try, but 100% bogus.
Obama should step down tomorrow and let YOU be president.
Right. You run right over to the Oval Office and move your computer in there.
Now let's just stay on planet Earth--or is that too much to ask?
I live in a real world, and if folks in the US lived there, too, maybe you wouldn't be dragging the rest of us down the drain.
Mr. Weisbrot,
Your webpage states what follows:
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)…"CEPR conducts both professional research and public education. The professional research is oriented towards filling important gaps in the understanding of particular economic and social problems or the impact of specific policies. The public education portion of CEPR's mission is to present the findings of professional research, both by CEPR and others, in a manner that allows broad segments of the public to know exactly what is at stake in major policy debates. An informed public should be able to choose policies that lead to an improving quality of life, both for people within the United States and around the world."
In my view, in your article: "Will Obama Change U.S. Policy Toward Latin America?" or "Venezuela, an imaginary threat" you neither fill gaps in understanding the situation in Venezuela nor present the findings in a manner that allows broad segments of the public to know exactly what is at stake, what is more any basic research work would have views from multiple sources and points of view, but clearly you only present the views of the government and its allies.
With regard to President Obama's accusation that Chavez has been "exporting terrorist activities.", I cannot believe that you haven't read the information about the computer files found in Ecuador's FARC Guerilla's camp which, and I don't expect you to believe this source, but at least it should make you doubt, "A cache of controversial computer files closely tying Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez to communist rebels seeking to topple Colombia's government appear to be authentic, U.S. intelligence officials say." "The files that have been made public so far have largely confirmed Mr. Chavez's well-known sympathy for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. But a review by The Wall Street Journal of more than 100 new files from the computers suggests that Venezuela has broader and deeper ties to the FARC than previously known. (MAY 9, 2008 Chavez Aided Colombia Rebels, Captured Computer Files Show).
I think that your assertion that "The charge that Venezuela is "exporting terrorism" would not pass the laugh test among almost any government in Latin America." is taking the matter very lightly.
When you say that "Nor do the other Latin American democracies see Venezuela as an obstacle to progress in the region", you only refer Mr. Lula who with Chavez is member of the Foro de São Paulo, a conference of left-wing and nationalist political parties and social movements in Latin America and the Caribbean and that "Lula was in Venezuela's oil producing state of Zulia where he emphasized his strategic partnership with Chavez and their common efforts at regional economic integration", clearly, unconstitutionally, campaigning for Chavez for the recent referendum to eliminate term limits. You also name Bolivia, a country which has received millions of dollars from Venezuela as well as military support and whose president would probably not be there had it not been for Chavez intrusion in the internal affairs of Bolivia. Now, you fail to mention the opinion of Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Panama, etc. So I think that there is further research to be done in this matter.
You go on to say that "the Associated Press ignores the attacks from Washington and portrays Chavez's response as nothing more than an electoral ploy on his part.", have you not heard the verbal abuse Chavez has expressed about your elected and appointed officials, calling President Bush: Mr. Danger, a donkey, a drunk, a coward, a genocide, a murderer, an assassin the devil (at the U.N.), and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an illiterate and a sexually frustrated woman?, you may not agree with the past administration, but as a citizen of the U.S you should not be happy about such language from the president of another country, He has accused Barack Obama, whom he has nicknamed 'el negro', of supporting the Venezuelan opposition and wanting to see him removed from office and furthermore that Barack Obama has the same "stench" as President Bush, so lets not talk about Chavez being restrained.
About the opposition dominating the media in Venezuela, take a second look, and see where the power of the media is. Just one network TV Globovision is in the opposition; RCTV, he closed down and "robbed" them of all of their equipment; Venevision and Televen, do not talk about politics; the rest of the TV media is in the hands of Chavez. In the most recent referendum, which by the way was unconstitutional, according to Prof. Allan Brewer-Carias" in a recent interview for the Council on Foreign Relations "There was a massive and incredible amount of public money used by the government in promoting this referendum in these last months. The use of the public media in favor of Chavez and the limited access of the opposition to those media of course helped produce this result"
And for you to research and find out he and many other say that: "We have a country where there is no check and balances, no separation of powers at all. The executive controls the assembly, and through the assembly it controls the Supreme Tribunal, the attorney general, the prosecutor general, the defender of the people, the comptroller general."… and I would add the Electoral Council (CNE)…" So all the branches of government are completely controlled, and the power concentrated in the executive. So in this sense we are already in a totalitarian regime."
Sometimes people are so biased to what they believe, that they are incapable of seeing other viewpoints, and sometimes the truth.
Quoting from U.S. State Dept. disinfo and The Council on Foreign Relations isn't what I would call "filling gaps of understanding". I think that would be YOU who "only present the views of the government and its allies".
The latest troll retread says:
"With regard to President Obama's accusation that Chavez has been "exporting terrorist activities.", I cannot believe that you haven't read the information about the computer files found in Ecuador's FARC Guerilla's camp which, and I don't expect you to believe this source, but at least it should make you doubt."
I can't believe that someone SO concerned with Venezuela's issues as yourself (sic) did not realize that Greg Palast debunked the bulletproof laptop caper in less than a week after it surfaced from the imagination of Alvaro Uribe! (Google it, troll--the caper didn't pass the laugh test with anyone except gringos like you.)
I can't believe someone as CONCERNED (sic) with the affairs of other countries but not your own pathetic cesspool is not aware that the process of UNITING South America (of which, FYI, Mexico and Panama do not belong) was conceived by Chavez and the rest of the SA leaders got on the bandwagon. (Don't start with how they are suckers or that Chavez threatened to invade their countries, as I am laughing too hard already.)
I am a US citizen, trollboy, and I CHEERED when Chavez referred to Bush as a donkey, until I realized he had over-rated Bush's intelligence--and I CLAPPED when he referred to the smell of sulphur on the UN podium. I have referred to Bush and the rest of his criminal cohorts with much harsher language, and I will continue to do so. You, sir, are one of those scoundrels whose last refuge is patriotism.
Actually, it is Chavez who is referred to as El Negro by the US-funded Venezuelan opposition. Also El Mono, El Chango, El Africano, etc. So your point in regrad to the plastic president Obama is not well taken--especially given that the New York Post or Daily News seems to print cartoons of Obama as a dead chimp.
80% of the media in Venezuela are owned by the opposition. Ravell is not the only owner. Gustavo Cisneros is hardly a chavista--he actually threatened to kill Chavez, and he is the owner of Venevision. You wouldn't know as you have never been to Venezuela, trollboy.
As for the quote from the opposition guy--where are YOUR quotes from chavistas? I believe that you criticized Weisbrot for not using opposition sources. Let's see YOUR chavista sources or you have, sir, shot yourself in the...foot.
You are obviously biased, obviously incapable of thinking for yourself or of even getting on a plane to Caracas. yet you complain about the bias of intelligent, educated folks who HAVE gotten on that plane and have done the legwork. I am one of those folks, and my message to you and other gratuitous guttersnipes is:
Sell it to someone more stupid and more gullible than you are. I come from the country and I know horseshit when I see it.
bligh4
Well, for better or worse- Venezuela is stuck with Ol' Hugo.
I will be interested to see how he pulls off getting the country out of it's inflation/crime spiral.
Oh really?
And I am sure that many folks are also waiting with bated breath to see how Bush--er, Obama--pulls YOUR country out of the toilet it is in.
Considering that so far Chavez has made much more intelligent decisions--and they have not caused the rest of the planet to go bankrupt or starve to death--than YOUR leaders, I think I'll keep stringing along with him. Since I live in Latin America and spend a lot of time, it's kinda my business.
Whereas I fail to see how inflation (which is currently going down) and crime in Caracas have anything to do with your life.
Maybe you should get off your ass and do something in YOUR country?
Of course you don't HAVE to--just a little suggestion from one US citizen to another....
bligh4
Your right, to hell with worrying about Venezuela. Have a nice day.
I think it's time for everyone to ignore patgarrett.
Your no longer trying to debate the merits of a position but rather you just trying to belittle and insult with malice intent anyone who isn't like you.
You knowing lie.
Your a lost cause.
I think it's time to ignore steelgrey. How can you even make these two statements back to back?
"but rather you just trying to belittle and insult"
then
"Your a lost cause"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
Both Patgarrett and steelgrey are engaging in a personal feud. If it is not stopped it will drive out those who want to talk about the issues.
You have identified a problem that pops up too often on CD (and in organizations, meetings and on other websites). You have trolls, paid agents and people with certain personalities who ENJOY back-and-forth rat-a-tat-tat arguments that make the rest of us weary. I think we should try to ignore them.
Joe
Why have threads been removed from here?
All comments relating to FARC have been censored!
Took you a while to notice, didn't it?
All of your comments related to Chavez and the FARC were lies.
Perhaps CD editors are sharp enough to know that by allowing you to continue posting libelous comments on this site that they will be liable for them?
You can bask in anonymity, but they can't.
Think about it before you post libelous comments again.
You and other malevolent trolls have ruined this site.
They removed everyone's remarks.
My remarks were made under the legal theory of qualified privilege and thus i nor CD would be liable for any harm. Further there was no Malice.
CD would also be protected under the theory of innocent dissemination. They were merely a delivery service for my message.
Maybe they removed it when someone, i don't remember if it was you, made the remark about how sleeping with preteens. I referenced how Reyes had a know preference to such things and somebody then made a crude remark on the subject.
Bunk.
Lawyers are starting to line up to create litigative precedence on internet libel.
YOU are the one who mentioned that you fanstasized about sleeping with both Raul Reyes (now dead--that is necrophilia kid) and pre-teens.
I consider that to be crude--as well as off topic. But it didn't surprise me.
WOW, you're pretty sick. I'm curious why are you so filled with hate that you would make such false and horrific comments.
I made reference to the fact that the world is a better place now that Reyes is no longer in it. He was a sick man who not only trafficked cocaine, killed and kidnapped innocent civilians but also liked to share his bed with preteens.
For you to make these false statements is abominable.
I don't know what happened to you to cause to you loose your conscience but have some respect for the children that Paul Reyes raped. They are not a punch line. Don't use them to make a slanderous hit on me. Make fun of my all you want but don't abuse the raped children anymore.
You have my pity.
Not that you deserve any.
Sue me for libel, BT.
Hopefully, I have made my point.
Like i said, misusing stories about raped children to make a point is something only a person without a conscience would do.
I don't need to sue you for libel, you've proven yourself to be a person with no honestly or respectability.
I could no more sue a mentally retarded kid for being slow then i could sue you for lying.
You just don't know any better.
You have my pity.
And you have the back of my hand for destroying this and other comment threads.
And, since I was a victim of rape, I am in a position to slap you just as hard as I feel like slapping you.
actually the majority of the venezuelan economy is not oil.
oil sales only account for about 40 to 50 % of the economy.
the private sector has grown more than the public sector
oil is nationalized in venezuela
please get your facts straight
Actually you didn't read what i wrote. I wasn't talking about the economy i was talking about the government budget.
Please read the comments correctly before you respond.
Bring America Back !!!! Prior to his Inauguration, over 3500 members of Latin Akmerican Nations, including Chavez, sent a gracious letter to Obama offering their hands of friendship, and to become co-equal global partners with his new Administration, as opposed to King Georges policy that the Third World were second class citizens.
* All Obama and his Team have to do is embrace South America in the very spirit of co-operation and friendship they are holding out !!
** To do otherwise defies any kind of Change we are promised, defies the New Global posture we want to achieve, and profiles us as enemies not as friends.
Apparently Obama's recent speech was way out of line !!!! Where Venezuela is concerned we need to see a handshake of friendship and not a clenched fist !!!
Wake up America !!
Pan
Not venezuela idiots , But Grenada is the real threat . Wake up befor it is to late.
Is Venezuela, through Citgo, still providing discount heating oil for poor USers?
Oh, the horror!
Americans cannot see beyond their own beliefs. Had America valued it's Native Peoples at home, it may have a clue as to the deeper meanings of the South American revolution. It is a revolution to overthrow five hundred years of Euro/American dominion. Unlike America, much of South America is populated by Indigenous Peoples. In 2007 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That document specifically spells out the rights of Indigenous Peoples worldwide. Only four nations refused to sign it, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Great Britain.
The people of Venezuela, the majority being Indigenous, are seeking to restore their right to live their culture, control their lands and resources, and elect their own leaders. The Euro and American elites are opposed to these efforts and are working actively to demonize the democratically elected leaders like Chavez, Di Silva, and Morales, all of whom have Indigenous blood and understand the Indigenous culture.
Marxism is a western belief system. The Indigenous belief system is twelve to fifteen thousand years older than Marxism. The Indigenous belief system celebrates respect, cooperation, reciprocity, and not the Western values of individualism and competition. So it is not Marxism that is being elevated there but instead that of their historic culture. It is their right to live as they choose, electing whom they choose, unencumbered by the continuing genocidal policies of the West launched by the Papal Bull Inter Caetera of 1493, and the Euro elites who have grown accustomed to imperial power.
This is an Indigenous revolution against the five hundred year genocide imposed upon them by Euro/Americans that cost the lives of over one hundred million Indigenous Peoples representing the worst genocide in the last five hundred years anywhere in the World. Yet not one comment in this string even eluded to this critical information. Yet this information is central to understanding what is happening in Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Equador, and an expanding number of South American and Central American countries.
It is not Marxism it is the rebirth of Indigenous culture.
A good post, but it sounds a bit too much like the "noble savage" propoganda to me...which is yet another invention of the invading westerners.
I seem to remember that human sacrifice and rather brutal top-down rule from an entrenched priest-class was also the legacy of South American indigenous peoples. Which might explain why a new priest class led by the Catholic church was able to maintain control over those people for so long.
Indeed, all the initial revolutions to throw off the Spanish yoke were directly inspired by the 'western' revolution of the USA.
Human sacrifice was not the norm, but instead practiced for a short time only at a time when food scarcity became critical. I am not describing a utopia but an Indigenous culture that lasted twelve thousand years or more. At the time of Colombus cities existed in South America larger than Paris. The wheel was invented here. Medicine and astronomy were very advanced. The milpa garden was developed consisting of maze, beans and squash providing all the dietary needs for a healthy life. The common Indigenous values of respect, reciprocity, and cooperation did provide the basis for long term stable civilizations. Much of the latest research can be found in the book entitled "1491."
So do not be too quick to dismiss the importance of Indigenous Peoples reclaiming their heritage after five hundred years of genocide. Again, it is not Marxism, it is the rebirth of Indigenous culture. It is a culture that American's do not understand because it is based upon a world view of Spirit, not science.
America is in serious decline and perhaps collapse after just 232 years, not exactly a poster child for sustainable civilization.
physic:
1. As a Native American, I am deeply offended by your post.
2. Any USite who doesn't understand that the US requires human sacrifice and is an entrenched top-down ruling model needs to have his vital signs checked yesterday.
3. The South American revolutions were inspired by the French Revolution and by Haiti's revolution. Bolivar was very enthusiastic about the Rights of Man promulgated by the French Revolution--and he went to Europe as a result, before trying to overthrow the Spanish rulers.
That's interesting, and there's certainly an element of truth in that. But the thing about a Marxist revolution is that it isn't made by "Marxists", but by the working class. And it isn't made so much because of how compelling Marxism is as an ideology, but because of certain economic conditions (oppression on the job, starvation wages, etc.) that compel people to act. So basically, "Marxism" is relevant in explaining political developments in ANY country undergoing capitalist development, regardless of if anyone in the entire country has ever actually heard Marx's name.
But I agree, there seems to be an indigenous element to nearly every uprising in Latin America. The Zapatistas are the outstanding example, but Morales has been called all kinds of extreme racial slurs by the Bolivian opposition, and Chavez is viewed the same way to a lesser extent. And the same indigenous/nationalist element goes all the way back to the 19th century Latin American revolutionaries, like Bolivar, Sandino and Marti.
I'm reminded of a quote by Che Guevara:
"Incidentally, here one must introduce a general attitude toward one of the most controversial terms of the modern world: Marxism. When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is the same as that of a physicist or a biologist when asked if he is a 'Newtonian,' or if he is a 'Pasteurian'.
"There are truths so evident, so much a part of people's knowledge, that it is now useless to discuss them. One ought to be 'Marxist' with the same naturalness with which one is 'Newtonian' in physics, or 'Pasteurian' in biology, considering that if facts determine new concepts, these new concepts will never divest themselves of that portion of truth possessed by the older concepts they have outdated. Such is the case, for example, of Einsteinian relativity or of Planck's 'quantum' theory with respect to the discoveries of Newton; they take nothing at all away from the greatness of the learned Englishman. Thanks to Newton, physics was able to advance until it had achieved new concepts of space. The learned Englishman provided the necessary stepping-stone for them.
"Obviously one can point to certain mistakes of Marx, as a thinker and as an investigator of the social doctrines and of the capitalist system in which he lived. We Latin Americans, for example, cannot agree with his interpretation of Bolivar, or with his and Engels' analysis of the Mexicans, which were made accepting as fact even certain theories of race or nationality that are unacceptable today. But the great men who discover brilliant truths live on despite their small faults, and those faults serve only to show us they were human. That is to say, they were human beings who could make mistakes, even given the high level of consciousness achieved by these giants of human thought. This is why we recognize the essential truths of Marxism as part of humanity's body of cultural and scientific knowledge. We accept it with the naturalness of something that requires no further argument."
So even Guevara, probably the most "orthodox Marxist" of all the Latin American revolutionaries, recognized that Marx's theories were both fallible and Western-biased. (Although it is less the Marx's core theories that are Western-biased and more all the other stuff--his aside comments, his journalistic writings, etc.).
Venezuela is a pretty advanced capitalist economy, especially for a Latin American nation. It probably has a bigger working class (in terms of percentage) than Russia did in February 1917. To think that the predictions made by Marx will play no role in their revolution is naive.
-------
Edit: Here are the actual stats on the Venezuelan working class from the CIA factbook:
Total country population: 26,414,816
Labor force: 12,490,000 with an unemployment of 8.5%
Breakdown:
--agriculture: 3.6%
--industry: 35.3%
--services: 61.1%
So, about 46% of Venezuelans are engaged in non-agricultural labor, plus a pretty big pool of unemployed.
Western culture and Traditional Indigenous culture are far too different to make inferences. Traditional Indigenous culture is based upon Spirit; whereas, Western culture is based upon science. If a person with Indigenous blood has lost their Traditional culture and become Christianized and Westernized it would be very difficult to generalize their actions as Indigenous because by culture they are Western. So, yes there are complexities that do muddy the political waters.
BUT over 90% of the Government budget is derived from oil sales.
Bigot troll alert--again!
You call Obama a racist and then call me a bigot...
Will you just admit that you hate Americans?
No.
One thing I do not do, bigot troll, is LIE.
I don't hate anyone--but I DO hold you--and other deliberately ignorant trolls--in contempt.
Another thing you don't do is use reason...
Also you never acknowledge the truth. I stated Venezuela's government budget is overwhelming provided by oil sales and you started calling me names...i'm sorry the truth hurts.
The truth doesn't hurt ME, bigot troll.
I live in Latin America. I spend time every year in Venezuela. I don't live in my mother's basement surrounded by porno mags and posting adolescent fantasies in internet.
Check the top of the board of comments for the TRUTH about the oil sector, BT.
Use reason--on a US comments site?
You're joshin' me, kid.
All US sites except znet are just Fox News wanna bes.
Then why are you here?
To show you up for the 16-year old nincompoop that you are.
HMM, calling me names isn't showing me up....
I use facts and figures to rebut your remarks and you respond with name calling.
It seems you're the one acting like a 16 year old....
Any nation or people who oppose US must surrender or die.
US will rule, US will dominate, US will exploit, US will murder and steal because that is the nature of US.
All that is non-US must cease to exist or join US.
Submit to US or be exterminated.
Hail US! Hail US! Hail US!
I'm sorry if I seem rather silly for asking this question but why is the U.S. so anti-South America? Why are they trying to "divide and conquer?"
I've just stumbled on this site--it really is an eye opener. Before this I was a victim of the captive media. Such wasted time...
" CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN" can be found on amazon.com
Excellent book!
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books...
Interviews with John Perkins on DemocracyNow.org as well
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/15/self_described_economic_hit_man_john
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/5/17/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
"WARIS A RACKET" authored by general smedley d. butler. you can find it on amazon.com
Monroe doctrine...
^^^
monroe doctrine has nothing to do with it. it is strictly imperial hubris. now that we are a hamburger helper republic, we can no longer boss any one around without starting a war.
The question was when did it begin, not what is the justification now...
Of course there have been millions of new ways to justify empire that are just as hollow as the original reason...
And of course there was imperial expansion prior to the Monroe doctrine...
However, it gave justification for Americans who were protectionist at the time to support meddling in other countries...
Besides, war is only one tool for economic hegemony... The neoliberal model of NED IMF WB WTO Nafta/Cafta has been much more effective at privatization of national infrastructure and resources, often following CIA covert operations of rigging elections and assassinations if they can't game the elections...
Hello newtoallthis and welcome. To answer your question best I can- geopolitically... it is nearby. So it could always become a threat through proximity (ex. Cuba). Dividing and conquering seems to be the MIC's brightest idea to ward off those scary anti-capitalists (personally I'd say a 60w bulb is brighter).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
A better question is why does Chavez hate America so much?
No, Joe, that's another one of your dumb questions.
Chavez doesn't hate that part of America called the US. When Clinton was pres, he even threw out the first pitch at a baseball game in NY.
Then Bushbutt was imposed and immediately threw hundreds of millions of your tax dollars at incompetent idiots in Venezuela to impose a CIA-designed coup against Chavez so that the US could have Venezuela's oil for what it was selling for when Chavez took office--7 bucks a barrel.
Sort of irritated Chavez--one of the few really democratic leaders in the hemisphere in 2002.
Chavez has made it very clear that he doesn't hate the people of the US--if he did they wouldn't be heating their homes with Venezuelan petroleum--in many cases for free, nor using Venezuelan oil to run their cars.
Grow up, Joe--it is WAAAAAAAAAAAY past time.
Why, joehope? If you are really serious, let's review a little history.
1810's and on. HAITI. US supports France in extorting a huge monetary compensation for slaves lost in Haiti's War of Independence. Haiti's economy is devastated.
1835. TEXAS. Americans in Texas declare independence mostly because, oh horror, Mexico has outlawed slavery.
1848. MEXICO. US conquers about 40% of Mexico's territory.
1853. MEXICO. William Walker, a private US citizen, briefly takes control of Baja California, and declares it a slave state under the laws of Louisiana. A jury in California takes 8 minutes to acquit him of violating US neutrality laws.
1856-7. Walker invades NICARAGUA and declares himself president. He immediately revokes Nicaragua's Emancipation Declaration of 1824. U.S. President Franklin Pierce recognized Walker's regime as the legitimate governor of Nicaragua on May 20, 1856. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(soldier) )
1898 PUERTO RICO and CUBA. After the war with Spain, US takes over Puerto Rico permanently, and Cuba until 1910. Cuba is granted independence only after signing the "Platt Amendments" which give the US veto power over changes in its constitution.
1900's to 20's. Numerous invasions of Central American and Caribbean countries, leading General Smedley Butler, who led many of them, to write, "War is a Racket," in which he declares himself to have been a hired thug for United Fruit and others.
1954. GUATEMALA. CIA overthrow of President Arbenz, who hoped to expropriate some of the lands of United Fruit. Leading to decades of guerrilla war, and the death of about 200,000
1961. CUBA. US sponsored Bay of Pigs Invasion, followed by numerous attempts to assassinate Castro. (Note. The new president of Guatemala has just apologized because his country had been used as a training and staging base for the invasion.) US embargo voted illegal by all but 4 countries in the UN General Assembly.
1964. BRAZIL. US ships arms to generals who then overthrow President Joao Goulart. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB118/index.htm for documentary evidence of US role.
1965. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. 42,000 US troops invade to prevent the restoration of President Juan Bosch, who had been overthrown by a right wing coup two years previously.
1973. September 11. CHILE. CIA supports coup against socialist President Salvador Allende, after years of financing economic destabilization. Millions of dollars to finance a strike by truck owners, for example. See:
http://www.labournet.de/diskussion/gewerkschaft/scipes2.html to read:
The New York Times of September 20, 1974 reported that intelligence sources had disclosed:
... the majority of more than $8 million authorized for clandestine CIA activities in Chile was used in 1972 and 1973 to provide strike benefits and other means of support for anti-Allende strikers and workers. Among those heavily subsided ... were organizers of a nationwide truck strike in 1972
1980's NICARAGUA. US Contra War. 30,000 Nicaraguan deaths. In 1986 World Court finds US should pay $17 billion in reparations for mining Nicaragua's harbors.
1989 VENEZUELA. The "Caracazo." New elected President Carlos Andrés Pérez breaks his election promises and institutes the IMF "Washington Consensus" package of privatization. Gas prices rise 100% overnight, bus fares 30%. In the ensuing riots and repression as many as 3,000 people are killed.
1991 and 2004. HAITI. President Aristide is overthrown by Bush senior and by Bush junior.
2002 VENEZUELA. "Documents Show CIA Knew of Venezuela Coup."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1203-09.htm
and the US was the only country to "recognize" the coup government.
OK friends, just a brief outline. Americans may not know this history, but educated Latins know it like the back of their hands.
Does Chavez HATE Chavez? Actually he has more of a sense of humor than that. He referred to George W Bush as "Mr. Danger," a figure from a Venezuelan novel. Considering the history, it's an accurate nickname. As for Obama, Chavez says he wants to talk.
If hating George Bush means hating America, I hate America too.
Seriously, your arguments in this thread are pathetic, please step up your game and bring some evidence to the table.
The United States is complicit in a coup which overthrew Chavez for 24 hours. A documentary of the coup can be found on video.google.com; it's called "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". The United States' complicity in trying to overthrow Chavez has been well documented in at least two books by Eva Golinger.
This follows a long history of U.S. intervention in Latin America, including a military coup against democratically elected Marxist president Salvador Allende, which resulted in widespread political repression, torture, and thousands of deaths of dissidents at the hands of the state; and another coup which overthrew democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz (who wasn't even a socialist) in Guatemala, resulting in literally decades of genocide in that country. Google "Yale Genocide Studies", and go to their website, and you'll find that they list Guatemala as one of just a handful of countries to have experienced a full-blown genocide in the 20th Century. It all started with a CIA coup. These facts are not disputed by anyone.
Chavez, on the other hand, has repeatedly *reached out* to Americans even while speaking out against America's terrible leaders. For instance:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0109/p25s02-woam.html
A political ploy? Certainly. But your choice of political ploys says something about you. The United States' idea of a political ploy is to get the Venezuelan media to call for a military coup against Chavez, or to bribe corrupt union leaders to strike against his government. Chavez' idea of a political ploy is to offer free heating oil to poor Americans. I'll bet the Venezuelans *wish* George Bush would engage in such political ploys toward them!
joe; could it be we tried to kill him.
At the present it is difficult in Venezuela for those who left Chile during the early 1970s as refugees from a dark era in Chilean and Argentinian history. More than anything, those (which are many of the middle class in Venezuela) people who migrated to Venezuela were aspiring for stability and enough prosperity to allow their families to live without fear for their survival than what they knew in Argentina and Chile in the '70s. Still in places like Venezuela, the military was always waiting in the barracks for the opportune time to enter leadership, no matter what quasi democracy was in place. Whether the US needs to in any fashion intervene in Latin America is a moot point in light of the enormous economic trouble the US is experiencing currently and the fervent hope for Obama's team of finding a geopolitical balance and allies in neighboring Latin America (Venezuela being the nearest South American neighbor of our country here in the US). Chavez is not an educated man which makes him more vulnerable to myopia and popularism and his alliances in Venezuela are dependent on the well being of a mono-culture petroleum country which will be increasingly vulnerable to market forces in years ahead. The narco trade issues are enormously difficult for any leader in Latin America and there needs to be international dialogue on this issue; how to help farming families reliant on the coca culture to diversify to food crops is very difficult given the world economic depression and macroeconomic stress.
For the Venezuelans who years ago could go to the supermarket at will are now in ration lines to get their food and necessities. Still Venezuela is overall a very impoverished country and the effort to raise up such a country and it's economic development of the people is an enormous undertaking. Mao did this only under his own tyranny. Cuba represented an exercise which established nearly complete literacy as well as health care for its people under an often difficult influence of a totalitarian government. Venezuela's Chavez is seeking to replicate Cuba's experiment which is hopeful for the impoverished masses but not an easy existence for the ex patriots from other countries who are now aged and very tired of instability and survival worry. Crime is severe in Venezuela's cities and non-statist crime axiomatically diminishes in authoritarian regimes historically which infers that Chavez has not, at this moment, created such a state. The world is, in this modern era, interconnected intimately and back in the '80s, many political scientists believed that economic trade would stabilize governments and increase world security. The present economic world crisis will call on every leader throughout the world to seek dialogue of problem solving and learning to survive a very difficult epoch in human times.
For President Obama, he must balance the opinions of his team with historic and contemporary realities while treading a precarious path of ascertaining what geopolitical balance must mean in these contemporary, post Bush times: this is one of the most difficult periods in American history to lead and I believe that President Obama will continue to listen intently to words of wisdom.
What do you mean by "Chavez is not an educated man"?
He means that he, in his racist hatefulness, believes that only white--or culturally white--folks are educated.
The fact that Chavez has a master's degree--while the poster himself didn't finish junior high--is beside his point.
Chavez was also a prize-winning playwright before entering politics.
Another paid poster giving us anti-Chavez hate speech.
Are we ALL not part of the HUMAN RACE?
in the night I hear the wailin
attack! attack by Venezuelan!
What a short memory you have.
"Obama started off with an unprovoked verbal assault on Venezuela."
In January Chavez said Obama had the "same stench" as his predecessor.
Does anybody fact check these articles?
When he said it was the same miasma, it was in response to Obama's unprovoked attack, bigot troll.
Duh.
This is a good example of how the media misrepresents these events. It is perhaps not Steelgray's fault that he does not know that Chavez's remark was a direct response to Obama's statement that Venezuela was "an obstacle to progress in the region" and "exporting terrorism," i.e. Obama's "unprovoked verbal assault." Chavez made this very clear; he even pointed out when he said this that Obama had "cast the first stone." He then said:
"I hope I am wrong, but I believe Obama brings the same stench, to not say another word."
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50G2F420090117
Could you provide an actual link to the remarks Obama said?
"But in the last few days, he has picked up on comments he attributes to Obama accusing him of obstructing progress in Latin America and exporting terrorism."
-What were the comments?
The comments were--and he made them a week before being sworn in as president--hat Chavez obstructed progress and exported terrorism.
Duh again, bigot troll.
Maybe you aren't very good at reading...lets try again...
CAN YOU PROVIDE A LINK?
Forgive me for not trusting the word of someone who calls everyone a bigot and troll...
Can YOU google?
I don't provide anything but the back of my hand to creeps like you.
You are the ONLY person I am calling bigot troll.
Live with it, or stop posting bullshit.
Obama stands against racism and socioeconomic injustice in the US(somewhat, at least); and yet seems to side with the bigots and oligarchs in Latin America. Obama is portrayed a monkey/chimpanzee that should be shot in the New York Post. Chavez is called a monkey by well-to-do racists in Venezuela.
If Obama is really a progressive he must be brought to realize that our enemies are not the governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, etc., but rather the people in the US who promote imperialism: the Republican Party and DLC Democrats. He needs to wake up and extricate himself from their cancerous influence, and throw them out of his (our) government.
He needs to shut down the nefarious practices of the NED, IRI, USAID, & CIA which work to destabilize any government that does not please the multinational corporations
We need to continually tell him how we feel by contacting him at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
But, but Chavez uses his oil revenue to make life a little better for people other than the old feudal elite. What kind of democracy is that? All American media knows the rich need more more.
Thanks Mark Weisbrot:
If you get your information primarily from the MSM, then you'll likely see Chavez as head of a "criminal regime" (quoted from film below). If Obama was to have a less reactionary posture towards Venezuela, he would be going against the constant demonization by the American news media. Unless a person has gone out of their way to seek the truth about Venezuela, then Chavez is at best a buffoon or worst evil incarnate. I can't remember how many people, otherwise liberal or progressive, that I have talked to that have the same view of Chavez as any Neo-Con. Our corporate media remains a big part of the problem.
See John Pilger's excellent film: "The War on Democracy"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4221598130733050551
O'Bama supporters should not feel badly about their savior ditching his buggy into the extreme right gutter. There's enough room here on the far left for everyone. Walk on over. We don't need a savior over here.
Good article.
Probably Obama will push Venezuela in a Cuba-like direction. He's being his usual careerist self, attacking a whole country for his personal gain (political capital/re-electability), and the Venezuelans are responding by removing term limits.
This looks like the Cuba-Kennedy relationship in slo mo (remember that Fidel did not declare himself a "Marxist-Leninst" until December 2, 1961, 23 months after taking power, because of a cycle in which Kennedy tried to ham-handedly make Cuba submit to liberal ideology and the Cubans reacted with indignation). Chavez has been in power since 1998, so obviously it's taking longer than it did with Castro, but Chavez has already started to call himself alternately a "Trotskyist", a "Maoist", etc. (Which goes to show, I guess, that Chavez is pretty opportunist himself--since he is neither of these things).
Anyway, I hope Venezuelans are sufficiently angered by Obama's blustery, imperialist rhetoric against them, and that they become the spearhead of a movement of underdeveloped and exploited nations willing to stand up to the West. Their own slimy politicians are more than happy to collaborate with Western financial institutions in order to help sink their countries for personal gain, so there will have to be a popular upsurge in awareness of how things work, and anger about it.
Jimmy,
Try thinking logically.
If Eight years of Bush did not push Chavez in a Cuba-like direction (why not write in English and say "to adopt the Cuban model"?), it seems UNLIKELY that Obama's retreading Bush's speeches will do so.
What about YOU, and the rest of the USites spearheading a movement that allows YOU to stand up to your bogus leaders?
Minding YOUR own business sometimes even pays off.
Good points. But I think you meant making "Cuba submit to American CONSERVATIVE ideology". In the case of Cuba, Kennedy tuned in to his reactionary conservative roots as befits an oligarch.
No, he meant "liberal ideology" as most of the world understands the term. It refers to economic liberalism, aka unfettered capitalism or, in it's recent disasterously failing global manifestation, "neoliberalism".
For example the Australian political party most like the Republicans is called the "Liberal Party".
The more proper term for what Americans mean when they use the term "liberal" would be "social-democrat", "labor-left", or just "left". In the UK, the term is "Fabian".
Now, if we can just get the US to abbreviate dates like the rest of the world, mean a million million, not a thousand million, when they say "billion"; and especially, use the measurement system the rest of the world uses, we will be getting somewhere.
---USAn---
In the UK, the term WAS "Fabian". And still might be in some circles. But, in general use, it is also "liberal". As in the Liberal Democratic Party.
I stand corrected. I didn't know the liberal Democratic Party was so big. I guess US usage is creeping in.
---USAn---
It's those little idiosyncrasies that make us so great....
Right, I meant classic liberal, as in pro-market.
Weisbrot sez: "The charge that Venezuela is "exporting terrorism" would not pass the laugh test among almost any government in Latin America."
***
It also fails the smell test.
The rancid odour of USAID, IMF, the World Bank and their assorted patrons hangs over this rhetoric like a toxic cloud.
Same you can believe in!
It is sad yet predictable to see owebama take this posture toward Chavez...
While WHISC (terrorist training camp formerly known as School of the Americas) continues to churn out Latin American military officers to train paramilitary squads to subjugate the campesinos and indigenous peoples and force them off their land, into cities...
To clear the way for loggers, ranchers, developers, industrial plantations, and pharmaceutical patents...
The rightwing meme that Chavez is exporting terrorists to Colombia is a lie to befuddle the truth... The paramilitaries, military contractors, marxist geurrillas, and Uribe's own syndicate are all narcotraffickers, competitors, yet do not want to end this racket...
Chavez orchestrated the release of foreign citizens held hostage by FARC in Colombia despite restance from the US and Uribe...
I knew that owebama was not the progressive populist he was made out to be based on his long time stance on Cuba and Chavez...
OBAMA FOLLOWS IN FOOTSTEPS OF DEMOCRAT TRIAGE DURING THE MCCARTHY PERIOD: RIGHT WING FOREIGN POLICY TO MAINTAIN ROOSEVELT-IAN DOMESTIC POLICY
As early as 1944 Republicans scored electoral gains on anti-Communist platforms; their goal then was not to attack Russia - then a US ally - but to debunk and roll back New Deal domestic reform. During the McCarthy Period and the Cold War, Democrats adapted right wing foreign policy positions not simply because they wanted a military buildup or nuclear war, but as a matter of triage - by getting on board the anti-Communist hysteria, they sought to protect themselves from right wing attack and, thereby, to preserve Roosevelt's New Deal domestic policies.
Obama is making the same foreign policy trade-off, based on a narrow domestic political calculation: indifferent to the actual issues, indifferent to the strategic question of how his right wing positions worsen relations with Latin America or foster a terrorist-friendly perception of US hostility, indifferent to how hostile world opinion plays into right wing US hands, he angles for short-term domestic gain - mouth hostile and aggressive right wing foreign policy garbage to score compromised domestic gain.
Not only is this wrong, it is counter-productive: as in the US, as in Orwell's 1984, a hostile world and a state of permanent war - whether against Reagan's "Evil Empire" or "terror" - locks in the right.
Hello abramawicz,
A "RIGHT WING FOREIGN POLICY TO MAINTAIN ROOSEVELT-IAN DOMESTIC POLICY" didn't actually work too well, did it?
Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam psychosis destroyed his "War on Poverty," his "Great Society," and OUR progressive/liberal coalition. "Great Society" programs raised expectations among both Whites and Blacks. But when the money needed to fulfill these expectations was diverted to Vietnam, both sides turned bitter, and turned against each other. The Black movement allied itself with anti-war students; and millions of White Democrats fled first to Wallace and then to Nixon. Riots and demonstrations, against the War and against the failure of the "War on Poverty," solidified the destruction of the New Deal Coalition. The greatest political catastrophe of twentieth century America. If there hadn't been a Vietnam war and escalation, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes would have been, at most, small historical footnotes.
And now Obama faces the same choice open to LBJ. Will he put his resources into war or into peace? In this age of economic and ecological collapse, Obama's choice may be even more momentous that that of Johnson.
"Obama started off with an unprovoked verbal assault on Venezuela. In an interview broadcast by the Spanish-language television station Univision on the Sunday before his inauguration, he accused Hugo Chávez of having "impeded progress in the region" and "exporting terrorist activities".
Univision can be the Latin oligarchy's mouthpiece, angered by Chavez's giving homes, food, healthcare, education and other benefits to his people.
Steinberg can be the Zionist mouthpiece, angered by Chavez's friendship with Iran.
Shannon can be the oil company mouthpiece, angered by Chavez's oil nationalization.
Is President Obama Bush-lite or is he playing politics to stay alive?
The former. If he has to play this kind of politics to stay alive, he doesn't deserve to. It's obvious that he views any movement that threatens the status quo the same way as the rest of the ruling class. That's what's so ironic about his "CHANGE" B.S.
I have been consistently disappointed w/ Obama's foreign policy, and this is at the top of the dung heap. I know he's no foreign policy powerhouse, but he's been terribly misguided on both Venezuela and Russia/South Ossetia. He's seemingly strongly influenced by someone with an outdated and hardened outlook--Biden perhaps? He's got to lose whoever it is.
He was groomed by people with outdated and hardened outlooks. I wouldn't wait too long for Obama to lose that influence.
It's convenient for the Obama administration to maintain a racist posture against Chavez because then more whites will get on the bandwagon.
There is no one more racist than he who denies his own race.