You've gotta feel for Hugo Chavez. Things are not going well for him. Just six months ago, the guy was on top of the world: with sky high oil prices bringing in unprecedented amounts of money into his oil-rich fiefdom and, on top of that, the best of all possible enemies holding court in the White House!
Those were the days...
In just a few short months, though, everything's fallen apart for the Venezuelan strongman. The country's export earnings have collapsed in tandem with world oil prices leaving a huge gap in his spending plans just as a worldwide credit crunch makes it much harder to borrow the difference. And as if that's not bad enough, he's also losing his all-purpose Get Out of Jail Free card, as the invaluable bogeyman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is replaced with a man admired more or less all over the world.
It's no exaggeration to call this a crisis for Chavez: for the last eight years, high oil prices and the universal appeal of Bush-whackery really have been the two main pillars supporting his power. Suddenly, both are gone. With neither money nor a credibly demonizable enemy, Chavez is left to flail around pathetically as he tries to persuade people that no, really, Barack Obama is just like George W. Bush.
The timing here is terrible. Chavez is desperate to cement himself in power before the reality of the collapsed oil market and his non-performing gringo strawman quite sink in. In less than a month, he wants to rush through a referendum to allow himself to be re-elected indefinitely, in the desperate hope that his popularity will hold out just a bit longer before the world economic crisis really bites back home and the rank cynicism of his blanket anti-Americanism is revealed as a wholesale sham. It's a long shot.
His indefinite re-election gambit, though, is just the latest hail-mary pass from a guy who's plain old run out of ideas. But then, when you've built your entire claim to legitimacy on a mythical struggle against the unfailingly evil Empire of the North, it's gotta feel like unfair competition when American voters pull a fast one on you and elect a guy nobody could possibly take seriously as a blood thirsty empire monger.
What's sad is Chavez's utter inability to adapt. Just by getting elected, Barack Obama has hopelessly scrambled his circuits. This week, Chávez was mechanically back to the kind of shrill anti-gringo rhetoric that paid off handsomely against George W. Bush but that sounds utterly unhinged when you direct it against Barack Obama.
On Saturday, Chavez called president-elect Obama the new "leader of the Empire" and accused him bitterly of "meddling" against him in Venezuela's referendum campaign...because, as you and I both know, Barack Obama had nothing better to do last week than worrying about the minutiae of Venezuelan politics.
It's just pathetic...and it's hard to overstate how badly Chavez is misreading the international mood surrounding President Obama's inauguration, how naive his attempt is to transition straight from Bush-whackery to a primitive brand of Obama-baiting that treats the two as basically interchangeable.
Nobody's buying it. Chavez has badly misunderestimated the United States' awesome capacity to reinvent itself, to recreate its identity within the structures of its own constitution. He just hasn't grasped that lines of rhetorical abuse that were lethal two days ago just can't pass the snigger test when they're targeted against Barack Obama. And without a credible enemy he can pin his failings on, he has no excuses left for the way he's bungled a full decade in power.
Shorn of the fig-leaf that all-out anti-Bushism represented, Chavez's autocratic ambitions are revealed to all the world for what they were all along. Without the veneer of revolutionary hope that rhetorical anti-imperialism provided, the Chavez experiment is exposed as a 21st century rendering of the oldest of Latin American vices: the undying thirst for unchecked, unlimited, personal power till death do us part.
Anyone who believes this is democracy must be using the term in the same sense as the former East Germany or other Stalinist regimes did. And sure, you can make a mere word function any way you like. 'Newspeak' was Orwell's term, wasn't it?
The vast majority of Venezuelan's don't get your joke. You may say that Venezuela is getting more undemocratic, but most people who live there and are experiencing the changes say the opposite. The annual Latinobarometro poll of all Latin American countries shows that the numbers who are "satisfied with the way their democracy works", has risen from 35% to 59% during the Chávez presidency. The Latin American average is 37%.
http://www.vicuk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=235&Itemid=29
Elections are free and fair, and internationally monitored. The electoral authority, known as the CNE, also includes opposition leaning people on its executive. These individuals are not questioning the legitimacy of the process. The opposition candidate, Manuel Rosales, accepted his defeat in the last presidential election.
The viewing figures for opposition alligned TV stations to government alligned TV stations are pretty evenly balanced. Opposition stations like the extreme anti-Chavez Globovision, broadcast with far less restrictions than we have in Britain or the USA.
The vast majority of the newspapers are also anti-government, for example: El Nacional, El Universal, El Mundo, El Nuevo Pais, and Tal Cual.
I believe that, absent any ouside pressure on him, he will probably succeed in this undertaking and thus further cement his dictatorship. It is encumbant on the leader of the Free World to say something at this point to show the people of Venezuela that he sees through this sham. Whatever vulgar epithet is elicited in response shouldn't matter to him. Do it, Barack!
It's already been tried. When Hugo Chavez was briefly overthrown in a US sponsored coup in April 2002 and parliament was abolished, George Bush's official spokesman declared: "Now the situation will be one of democracy and tranquility"
The following day, an army revolt and a popular uprising reinstalled Chavez as president, and he went on to win a contest a further nine elections and referendums, winning eight and losing one. All were declared "free and fair" by election observers from the OAS, the EU and the Carter Center.
The response of the commenter above is to declare: "fraud" and "dictatorship".
You couldn't make it up if you tried.
Obama attacked Chavez for spreading leftist revolution & aiding Colombian guerillas.
Chavez read these quotes at a huge rally...
He told Venezuelans that Obama "threw the first stone".
That if Obama had this attitude, there would be no difference between he & Bush
This of course puts an entirely different complexion on Chavez's remarks, and in ommiting this all important sequence, the author is straying dangerously close to distortion.
Chavez's actual position is sophisticated and nuanced, and links Obama's intentions with his deeds:
“I am very happy and the world is happy that a U.S. President has arrived with good intentions, as is reflected by the fact that he took this measure [to close Guantanamo] at the start of his term"
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4139
Calvin Tucker
Co-editor www.21stcenturysocialism.com
When the Spanish finally caught Hatuey, they tied him to a stake and just before burning him alive, a priest advised him that if he accepted Jesus he would go to heaven.
"Are there Spanish in Heaven", asked Hatuey.
"Yes", replied the priest.
"In which case I would rather go to hell", said Hatuey.
I suspect that Chavez feels much the same with regards to the United States and their Venezuelan clients who overthrew democracy in the 2002 coup.
Though the post by Marcantm is strictly ad hominem - and thus of dubious legality on this board - I will answer it. I am married to a Venezuelan and have been there a number of times. I stay in touch with people there on a regular basis. I have not only statistics, but my own personal experience to attest to the appalling crime problem there; a number of close family members have been the victims of it.
As for Betancourt praising Chavez, that's just politics at work. She still sees herself as a possible successor to Uribe, and is clearly running well to his left (though maybe not quite so far as before!). Chavez's embarrassing failed attempt at mediation was motivated not one iota by concern for the hostages, but was a botched piece of international grandstanding that had Oliver Stone and others waiting expectantly with cameras rolling, only for nobody to turn up. I don't think Chavez ever quite forgave FARC for that one!
So what we are left with IS merely an assertion - that Chavez funds FARC - which is supported by no actual evidence.
Chavez's position on FARC is clear. Venezuela desires a negotiated end to hostilities and has called on FARC to free all its prisoners. The continuation of the civil war plays into the hands of the Colombian right wing, and is an obstacle to the creation of a Bolivarian-style mass movement akin to that in Venezuela or Bolivia. This is why Chavez was so keen to mediate between the Colombian government and FARC. It was Chavez's success in negotiating the release of four prisoners that led President Uribe to remove Chavez as mediator. Uribe needs this war to continue. Chavez needs it to end - hence Betancourt's statement that she does not believe that Chavez funds FARC.
Oh really? What this leaves out is Chavez's efforts to improve life for Venezuela's poor. The 60% or so that votes for him. It also neglects the natural alliance the Venezuelan oligarchy enjoys with the American right. And that Venezuela has conducted nine or ten FREE elections since Chavez has held power, and that he has abided by the results of all of them, including the one which didn't go his way.
Why shouldn't he suspect the United States Look at US history in South America? Look at the CIA sponsored coup against Chavez? And if Chavez is a "dictator," he is the first in history to abide by the results of free elections.
Chavez is a populist who doesn't dance to Washington's tune. And it is up to us to prove to him we will behave differently. For shouldn't the US at least attempt to encourage a world leader who's attempting to help the poor to move forward in a progressive manner?
The evidence in support of the allegation that Venezuela funds FARC rests on the apparent discovery of thousands of emails recovered from a laptop computer in a bombed out FARC training camp. The emails, we were told, prove that Venezuela funds FARC.
However, in early December, the official version, already widely disbelieved, began to crumble. The Colombian government-appointed investigator, Captain Ronald Coy, stated under oath that he had found only word documents in the laptop, and not a single email. This is a fact that the Western media is refusing to report.
http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/hugo_chavez_the_farc_laptop_and_the_non-existent_emails_01799.html
Further, the most high profile hostage seized by FARC, former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, stated shortly after her release that Chavez never had "“clandestine or wrongful relations with the FARC”.
She went on to parise Chavez's democratic credentials, describing him as a "great democrat” who “has brought about a peaceful revolution in Venezuela”.
Betancourt also praised Chavez's efforts to mediate between FARC and the Colombian government: “The voice of President Chavez was the voice that gave us hope even in the most terrible moments of captivity, the voice that allowed us to see the light at the end of the tunnel and believe that we could be freed soon,”
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4024
Calvin Tucker, Co-editor http://21stcenturysocialism.com/
Toro's colorful prose expresses well the fix that the Clown of Barinas now finds himself in, entirely of his own making. His frantic attempt to confer on himself a fraudulent legitimacy before the chickens of falling oil prices come home to roost should be obvious to all but his most fawning apologists.
What really really happened was this. Obama expressed (quite rightly) a concern over his sponsorship of terrorist groups such as FARC. In response Chavez immediately reverted to type - scatological ad hominem attacks - using the word 'stench' in reference to the President. Doubtless there will soon be more to come.
Chavez has had plenty of time -ten years of it. Despite his billions in oil revenues the social landscape of Venezuela has barely changed; in some aspects, notably crime, it has become far worse than before. His reponse; to ask for, nay to appropriate, an entire lifetime of power.
You decry Hugo Chavez for his ad hominem attacks, yet all you have done is resort to ad hominems for arguing against Chavez yourself. I am willing to bet you know absolutely nothing about the conditions in Venezuela, as indicative by your dubious statistic that crime in Venezuela has gone up as a result of Chavez.
For your information, crime is high all throughout Latin and South America -- a sad result of US economic strangulation over the entire region for the last eight years -- but it is FAR lower in Venezuela than in almost every other Latin American country, especially Mexico. So please, try again.
Nothing would make Chavez happier than for Obama to take the bait and get drawn into a war of words. However, I think he's too smart for that.
Of course, there was something a bit theatrical about the salvos of rhetoric that got tossed back and forth during the past several years. The US and Venezuela cheerfully continued to do business together.
If Toro really believes that the US has somehow "reinvented" itself by electing a new president, could he present some evidence for that? In what way will Obama's policy goals be significantly different than Bush's? All the evidence so far indicates the opposite.
Are you serious? In what way will they be the same? He's set out plans for universal health care, a different tax plan (eventually), and a different guiding principle regarding foreign policy.
As for Chomsky, he's become a sad case, much like Nader. Both were once great and are struggling to keep their relevance by making nonsense pronouncements for attention without providing support, the same thing you imply Mr. Toro is doing.
His tax plan is hardly "different". He is going to raise taxes on the rich by 3%!!! Do you really think that is significant?
As for foreign policy, his goals are almost identical. He supports Israel unwaveringly (as they slaughter 1300 people in the last few weeks), he insists on confrontation with Iran, wants to extend free trade throughout Latin America, wants to expand the military, etc. etc.
As I said, and as Chomsky has noted, the differences are pretty minimal.
Obama has strings of course. But I am hopeful that he will be allowed to work out a deal with Chavez that will be good for both countries. There will have to be something in it for the "American" oil companies.
Worse yet, for the best part of eight years, the Bush govt. and Chavez govt. held a war of words (and little else). More like it, the G.W. Bush administration was occupied (bumbling) with Iraq, Chavez called them names and tried to draw the attention of ***someone*** there, to the effect that every odd week some less-known official said something about Chavez, with a comment every quarter from Condoleezza Rice.
Now, Obama might turn U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America and to Venezuela in particular now that oil prices are very low. I see dark times ahead for Chavez, in trying to defend abroad his bid for staying in power indefinitely before a hugely charismatic person like Obama, leading a hugely powerful government, and standing for the principle of democratic alternation.
Don't mistake me for a partisan of intervention. The tolerable governments on Earth are those that are neutral, truly federal, limited and small. The Fed stopped being that a long time ago, and might give a second air to Hugo Chavez through bumbling.