|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Should Washington Try To Improve Relations With Venezuela? |
Current rating: 0 |
by Mark Weisbrot
(No verified email address) |
19 Jun 2003
|
|
Chavez's major crime seems to be that he was elected mainly by Venezuela's poor, who previously had little voice in the corrupt political system that had ruled the country for four decades. It appears that our government, as well as most of our foreign policy establishment, respects democracy only when "the right people" win elections. |
The United States has always had a bad reputation for the way it treats its neighbors south of the border, but Washington's treatment of Venezuela has been an embarrassment even by the low standards of diplomacy that it maintains for the region.
The Bush Administration endorsed a military coup against the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez last year. That's about as bad as you can get, although it may have been worse: There were numerous meetings between Bush administration officials and coup leaders in the months preceding the coup. Opposition groups also received increased funding -- some of it still unaccounted for -- from the U.S. government prior to the coup.
The major media in the U.S. have mostly joined our government in its hostility to Venezuela. In an editorial that was as scandalous as the exploits of reporter Jayson Blair, the New York Times also endorsed the military coup. The editorial board issued a half-hearted retraction a few days later. But there were few American journalists who bothered to ask how the most influential newspaper in the world's most influential democracy could have made the mistake of endorsing a military coup against a democratically elected government.
Chavez's major crime seems to be that he was elected mainly by Venezuela's poor, who previously had little voice in the corrupt political system that had ruled the country for four decades. It appears that our government, as well as most of our foreign policy establishment, respects democracy only when "the right people" win elections.
We have gone down this road before. Our government spent billions of dollars and financed the killing of thousands of people -- mostly innocents -- trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s. That government was democratically elected in 1984, but it made no difference to Washington. The result of American efforts is a still devastated country -- 13 years after the war ended -- with most Nicaraguans actually worse off than they were 40 years ago. The impact on our own democracy was harmful as well, as it led to the Iran-Contra scandal.
Unfortunately some of the same people who were implicated in that scandal are determining U.S. policy in Venezuela today, viewing their mission through the same distorted ideological lens. Chief among them is Otto Reich, who is currently serving as White House special envoy for Western Hemisphere Initiatives, and expresses unrelenting antagonism toward Venezuela. Last month Washington cut off credits from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to Venezuela, for reasons that appear to be political rather than economic.
Venezuela is a constitutional democracy, with complete freedom of the press, speech, assembly and association. The major media are controlled by the opposition, and their TV news broadcasts are so partisan that most people here would not recognize them as journalism. The opposition also has about 48 percent of the seats in the national congress, and controls most of the country's wealth.
If the reader has the impression that Venezuela is not a democracy, it is mainly because our own media regularly repeat opposition charges -- that the government is "authoritarian" or "Castro-communist" -- often without rebuttal. But as any visitor to Venezuela can see, it is one of the least repressive societies in the region.
Venezuela is our third largest trading partner in Latin America, and has continued to be a reliable energy supplier -- except during the past winter when the opposition led an oil and business strike, in another attempt to topple the government.
There is no legitimate reason for Washington's unfriendliness, as both Americans and Venezuelans have much to benefit from better relations between the two countries.
Mark Weisbrot is co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC (www.cepr.net)
____________________________________
Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in DC thought you might be interested in this analysis--below, in a memo accompanying an op-ed submission to Post editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt -- of what he believes are some of the shortcomings in a recent Washington Post editorial on Venezuela. The Post is not alone in expressing such views and assertions, and as events surrounding the proposed referendum unfold, these will be more frequent subjects of reporting and commentary. He would appreciate any comments you have. The Post editorial and Mark's comments follow:
Washington Post June 12, 2003
A Vote on Mr. Chavez
Edition: F Section: Editorial Page: A38
VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT Hugo Chavez and his opposition finally have agreed, in principle, on an electoral means to end the political turmoil that has all but wrecked one of Latin America's most stable and prosperous democracies. But it's fair to ask whether either side is sincere. The opposition coalition agreed to the deal, brokered by Cesar Gaviria, secretary general of the Organization of American States, only after a two-month strike intended to force Mr. Chavez from office proved a disastrous failure. Mr. Chavez, in turn, continues to behave as if he has no intention of giving up his attempt to push through a quasi-totalitarian, quasi-socialist "revolution," regardless of what his people may want. While it's possible that this increasingly polarized country could vote its way out of its crisis, it's not likely to happen without sustained pressure from outside.
In essence, the agreement brokered by Mr. Gaviria commits Mr. Chavez to respect his own constitution, which allows for a recall referendum after the midpoint of his current term this August. The terms favor the president: The opposition is first required to collect the signatures of 20 percent of the electorate, or more than 2.5 million voters, and if a recall vote is held opponents must win not only a majority but more total votes than Mr. Chavez obtained when he was last elected. Nevertheless, polls show that Mr. Chavez is at risk. In one recent survey, 85 percent of voters said they would participate and nearly two-thirds said they would support the president's ouster. Not surprisingly, Mr. Chavez is throwing up obstacles. He recently suggested that referendums on a number of mayors and provincial governors would have to be held first, and he has refused to agree on the composition of an electoral commission that must supervise the referendum.
More seriously, Mr. Chavez has pressed on with his attempt to centralize political and economic power in his hands. Last week his supporters in the National Assembly held a bizarre outdoor session -- to avoid the opposition -- in which they adopted new parliamentary procedures that would facilitate the approval of several far-reaching new laws. One would tightly constrict press freedom; another would add new judges to the supreme court. When a first attempt to implement the new procedures this week failed, the president's supporters vowed to try again. Mr. Chavez already has placed a stranglehold on Venezuela's supply of foreign currency, which he is using to choke off imports by the private sector. Gunmen opened fire on a recent opposition rally.
TO: Fred Hiatt
FROM: Mark Weisbrot
RE: Post Editorial on Venezuela, June 12, 2003
(1) "Mr. Chavez, in turn, continues to behave as if he has no intention of giving up his attempt to push through a quasi-totalitarian, quasi-socialist "revolution," regardless of what his people may want."
These words have dictionary definitions -- socialism involves at the very least state ownership of productive resources, and there has been little or no increase in that during the four years of Chavez' presidency. As for totalitarian, it is difficult to imagine even a quasi-totalitarian society in which the major media are almost all anti-government, and -- abandoning the norms of modern journalism -- broadcast anti-government news and messages all day long. Not to mention complete freedom of assembly and expression, opposition parties controlling 48 percent of the Congress, etc.
(2) "In one recent survey, 85 percent of voters said they would participate and nearly two-thirds said they would support the president's ouster."
I assume this is the Datanalisis poll carried out in May. This polling firm suffers from severe bias and may not be reliable. It is directed by Jose Antonio Gil. As T. Christian Miller reported for the Los Angeles Times,
[Mr. Gil] can see only one way out of the political crisis surrounding President Hugo Chavez.
"He has to be killed," he said, using his finger to stab the table in his office far above this capital's filthy streets. "He has to be killed." [Los Angeles Times, Sunday, July 7, 2002; Part A Main News; Part 1; Page 5; Foreign Desk]
In the United States, it is not customary for journalists to rely on polling firms who have openly demonstrated such a profound political bias.
(3) "Not surprisingly, Mr. Chavez is throwing up obstacles. He recently suggested that referendums on a number of mayors and provincial governors would have to be held first."
Mr. Chavez will not decide on the order of petitions to be verified or referenda to be held, nor has he made any statement to the effect that he would (as you know, he does not control the Supreme Court -- last year they decided that the officers who led the military coup against him could not be prosecuted). There are at least 40 other petitions that have been filed for the recall of elected officials (including some that are pro-Chavez), and some of these officials have already passed more than half-way through their terms. The CNE or TSJ (Supreme Court) will decide on the relevant dates for any and all referenda. There is no evidence to support the statement that "Mr. Chavez is throwing up obstacles." As a statement of fact, this assertion clearly merits a retraction.
(I have pasted below for your convenience a BBC report on the remarks by President Chavez referred to in your editorial. As you can see, there is nothing in his statement that suggests he is "throwing up obstacles" to the referendum, or indicates an intent for the executive branch to intervene).
"and he [Chavez] has refused to agree on the composition of an electoral commission that must supervise the referendum."
Mr. Chavez has not been involved in the process of choosing the electoral commission (CNE). It is very difficult to assess exactly what has happened in the process of choosing this commission; apparently the opposition representatives pulled out of the last meeting that was to decide on the fifth member of the CNE. The best that I can gather from press reports and statements from the parties involved is that the opposition was divided among themselves and could not agree; and that they thought they would do better by allowing the matter to be decided in the Supreme Court rather than by the Congress.
But even if these reports are wrong, the statement that "he [Chavez] has refused to agree on the composition of an electoral commission" is inaccurate.
(4) "One [proposed new law] would tightly constrict press freedom";
I have attached the law that you refer to; as you can see from the text, there is no part of this law that "would tightly constrict press freedom." As a statement of fact, this definitely merits a retraction.
(5) "In essence, the agreement brokered by Mr. Gaviria commits Mr. Chavez to respect his own constitution, which allows for a recall referendum after the midpoint of his current term this August."
It is worth noting that Mr. Chavez has always said that the voters could recall him according to the constitution, or pursue any other constitutional solution to remove him from office (e.g. a constitutional amendment calling for a new election). Throughout the strike and all of the recent turmoil he has said (this is an exact quote) "You can have anything you want, so long as it is in the constitution." It was the opposition who made extra-constitutional demands (the President's resignation, new elections, a referendum before the mid-point of his term, etc.) There is no evidence presented in the editorial that casts doubt on Mr. Chavez' prior commitment to following the law on this matter, nor has any been previously reported. So it is perhaps more relevant that the opposition -- which has attempted to topple the government by means of a military coup and by crippling the economy over the last year and a half -- signed a document committing to a constitutional process.
(6) "Gunmen opened fire on a recent opposition rally."
There is no evidence that the government had anything to do with this.
As I noted in the op-ed that I sent to you, one way in which our own media creates a false impression of Venezuela is by reporting opposition charges repeatedly, without regard to their falsehood, and often without rebuttal. From December 6 through May 1 there were five high-profile killings and bombings in Caracas. In each case the opposition blamed the government, and their accusations were given wide coverage in the U.S. media.
Investigations later showed no evidence of government involvement. In three of the cases, the confessed perpetrators were from the opposition. One of these was the near-simultaneous bombing of the Colombian and Spanish embassies. These were timed to follow a Chavez speech criticizing these countries' governments, and pro-Chavez leaflets were left at the scene -- in other words, a frame-up. Another was the torture and killing of three anti-government military men and a 14 year-old girl. The American press has yet to report on the confessions subsequently obtained in these crimes.
(7) "Venezuela's president needs to hear from the region's leaders that his persecution of opponents and attempts to dodge a fair referendum are unacceptable."
As noted above, there is no evidence of "persecution of opponents and attempts to dodge a fair referendum." _________________
Copyright 2003 Financial Times Information All rights reserved Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire Copyright 2003 BBC Monitoring/BBC BBC Monitoring International Reports
June 2, 2003
LENGTH: 254 words
HEADLINE: VENEZUELA'S CHAVEZ SAYS THERE COULD BE RECALL REFERENDUMS FOR STATE GOVERNORS
BODY: June; ellipses in parentheses as published
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez explained to his opponents that the signing of the Negotiation Board agreement on Thursday 29 May does not mean that the recall referendum on his term is a certainty.
"They said that in the agreement Chavez accepted the referendum; that is not so," the president said during his weekly "Hello, President" Sunday radio and TV programme, broadcast live from Miraflores. After reading item 12 of the document that was signed with the opposition, Chavez stressed that there are "many posts" which could be subjected to a referendum and he pointed out that the new National Electoral Council CNE will have to decide the procedure for voting.
"There are governors, such as Zulia's, for whom a referendum is going to be requested; that request could get to the CNE before the one for mine," he said.
"They (the opposition) have said this as a way to go preparing the ground, because if they do not meet the requirements, they are going to blame Chavez. It is the opposition that has to request it, to go and collect signatures, yes indeed; by themselves (...) What is happening is that there are some who are lazy (...) and the CNE has to review them," said Chavez.
|
See also:
http://www.cepr.net
|
|
