Venezuela

[Umengus]

I like Hugo Chavez!

Chavez is a president elected by the people venezuelan (not as Bush...) thus want to reverse by the violence is illegal. In venezuela, the media are free (and against chavez). No (illegal) repression by Chavez but freedom for all within the framework in the constitution. You can dislike Chavez and his project but you can not kill him. It's only the democracy... and democracy isn't it a american ideal?  

[Gustaf]

But maybe if Bush decided to remove SAP you would agree...

LOL! No, of course not. I never said that it was right to try and remove Chavez. Now, I will admit to not knowing enough about Chavez, some people think a lot of him, others have a very low opinion on him. I do think that American politicians on average are better than South American ones. But the key issue is whether pwe're talking about democratic countries or not. Now, whether Chavez was democratically elected does not seem entirely clear to me. But, overall, I don't think he should have been couped out. I was making a general point, rather than a specific one.

[Umengus]

For the first time of the history of humanity, you can see rich people express in the streets and poor people glad. Thanks Mister Chavez and please, cut oil for USA!

[YoMartin]

But maybe if Bush decided to remove SAP you would agree...

LOL! No, of course not. I never said that it was right to try and remove Chavez. Now, I will admit to not knowing enough about Chavez, some people think a lot of him, others have a very low opinion on him. I do think that American politicians on average are better than South American ones. But the key issue is whether pwe're talking about democratic countries or not. Now, whether Chavez was democratically elected does not seem entirely clear to me. But, overall, I don't think he should have been couped out. I was making a general point, rather than a specific one.

The democratic origins of his government are unquestionable. If I´m not mistaken he won the presidency not once but twice, before and after a constitutional reform. His party won the election to send delegates to this constitutional convention, and the new constitution was passed overwhelmingly in a referendum. What could be criticised is whether he governs in accordance to rule of law and separation of powers. In my opinion, his government has somewhat deviated from an ideal of democracy and rule of law, but not remotely enough to consider him a dictator. Especially if you consider what Venezuelan democracy was before Chavez  (traditional Venezuelan bipartisan socialdemocrat-christian democrat arrangements were awfully corrupt and, in a way, less democratic than Chavez, since rotation in power had been arranged decades ago by political elites to avoid instability), this isn´t so different -the only difference being that for the first time economic establishment is in the oppostion.

I´d like to see Chavez out, his economic plan was a complete disaster (helped, this should be said, by a bussiness lockout that lasted for several months) and he polarises the country that anything could happen (well, not a "Haiti" solution, but...). But the way to get him out is through free and fair elections. The recall is still a posibility, even if Chavez (à la Gray Davis) is trying to buy some time, but it will be inevitable sooner or later.

[YoMartin]

For the first time of the history of humanity, you can see rich people express in the streets and poor people glad. Thanks Mister Chavez and please, cut oil for USA!

Well, I don´t know if in the "history of humanity" (or even in the history of Venezuela...) this never happened, but indeed is going on right now. The question is whther the symbolic pro-poor people gestures of Chavez are making their lives any better, and I would simply have to say no. The countries overral income has shrinked (spelling?) very drastically in the last two years, even when the oil price is really high (and you can´t blame the lockout for the entire shrinkage). And, even if he threatens to cut exports of oil to the US, he won´t do it. Who would but it instead? Fidel?

[Gustaf]

But maybe if Bush decided to remove SAP you would agree...

LOL! No, of course not. I never said that it was right to try and remove Chavez. Now, I will admit to not knowing enough about Chavez, some people think a lot of him, others have a very low opinion on him. I do think that American politicians on average are better than South American ones. But the key issue is whether pwe're talking about democratic countries or not. Now, whether Chavez was democratically elected does not seem entirely clear to me. But, overall, I don't think he should have been couped out. I was making a general point, rather than a specific one.

The democratic origins of his government are unquestionable. If I´m not mistaken he won the presidency not once but twice, before and after a constitutional reform. His party won the election to send delegates to this constitutional convention, and the new constitution was passed overwhelmingly in a referendum. What could be criticised is whether he governs in accordance to rule of law and separation of powers. In my opinion, his government has somewhat deviated from an ideal of democracy and rule of law, but not remotely enough to consider him a dictator. Especially if you consider what Venezuelan democracy was before Chavez  (traditional Venezuelan bipartisan socialdemocrat-christian democrat arrangements were awfully corrupt and, in a way, less democratic than Chavez, since rotation in power had been arranged decades ago by political elites to avoid instability), this isn´t so different -the only difference being that for the first time economic establishment is in the oppostion.

I´d like to see Chavez out, his economic plan was a complete disaster (helped, this should be said, by a bussiness lockout that lasted for several months) and he polarises the country that anything could happen (well, not a "Haiti" solution, but...). But the way to get him out is through free and fair elections. The recall is still a posibility, even if Chavez (à la Gray Davis) is trying to buy some time, but it will be inevitable sooner or later.

OK, I think we're basically on the same side here. I agree that, as far as I know, Chavez was elected in a democratic election. I was rather referring to how he's ruling the country, and, to some extent, how free and fair those elections, or any elections in a poor country, actually can be said to have been. But I agree that democracy should be allowed to play out, that's always preferable to revolutions and especially much better than foreign intervention.

[YoMartin]

Some poor countries do have free and fair elections and some really rich ones (southeast asia) don´t... Yes, some of us do know how to count votes below the Equator...

[opebo]

A Liberal Democracy, or a constitutional democracy is perfectly fine.

Fascism involves resentment of weakness and disrespect for individuals. I'd say you're more of a fascist-lib then a libertarian one, and I honestly can't think of a better word than that right now, even though I apologize if you find it offensive.

And fascism has very little to do with democratic socialism, other than the belief in a strong state. And I would never invest in a fascist dictatorship. Compare how rich fascist dictatorships and how much foreign investment they've recieved with that of Western left-leaning demcoracies, like Sweden or Germany.

Gustaf, I certainly don't resent weakness or disrespect individuals.  I do however recognize that in life, weakness loses if challenged by strength.  This isn't a preference of mine, just an observation.  Because this is what I believe I observe, and it seems rational to me, I prefer a Realist foreign policy.  As for domestic politics, I fear the mob, but precisely because I think its dangerous for individual rights - not as you suggest because I disrespect in dividuals.

As for the comparison I made between Fascism and Democratic Socialism - their mutual preference for a strong state was precisely my point.  

[WMS]

Err, Umengus...did you read the opening story? While Chavez may have gotten into power fairly democratically, he has by far spent most of his time since then trying to become another Castro and plunge his country into totalitarian darkness. He isn't there yet, but that's what he is intending to do. All of the slogans about empowerment of the poor and whatnot (although quite a lot of the poor are sick of him as well - Chavez has UNDER 50% support) do not change that basic fact.

And to Gustaf and YoMartin...it's nice to say that we should let democracy play out, but what if, once in power, the ones in charge alter the rules to ensure they are never challenged again? It happened in Weimar Germany, after all...

[Umengus]

Err, Umengus...did you read the opening story? While Chavez may have gotten into power fairly democratically, he has by far spent most of his time since then trying to become another Castro and plunge his country into totalitarian darkness. He isn't there yet, but that's what he is intending to do. All of the slogans about empowerment of the poor and whatnot (although quite a lot of the poor are sick of him as well - Chavez has UNDER 50% support) do not change that basic fact.

And to Gustaf and YoMartin...it's nice to say that we should let democracy play out, but what if, once in power, the ones in charge alter the rules to ensure they are never challenged again? It happened in Weimar Germany, after all...

I don't agree with you. Chavez is another dictator? sorry but it isn't. The press is free (not in Cuba), civil rights are respected in the frameworks of the constitutions (not in cuba) and the rest is stupid predictions. Repression is normal when the demonstration is dangerous for the security (look at USA during the summit of OMC in seattle (1999?)).  And If there is a election today, I believe that Chavez would win (polls are private and private doesn't like Chavez). The corruption is side of the opponents of Chavez ( corrupt trade unions, owners,...).

The reforms of Hugo Chavez begin to give good results to poor people.If it were not the case, you will see poor people in the demonstrations. USA wanted make as with alliende in 1973 but the difference between Alliende and Chavez is that Chavez has army with him. No luck for Condolleeza Rice (another stupid member of Bush administration Washington Post said).

I'm not a socialist or a hugo chavez fans, I'm a (true) social-democrat (not as Jospin or Blair or schroeder or ...). But Venezuela is a poor country with rich ressources and there is a great inequallity between rich and poor. It must change and I believe that Chavez tries to make a good job to make this.

[YoMartin]

Err, Umengus...did you read the opening story? While Chavez may have gotten into power fairly democratically, he has by far spent most of his time since then trying to become another Castro and plunge his country into totalitarian darkness. He isn't there yet, but that's what he is intending to do. All of the slogans about empowerment of the poor and whatnot (although quite a lot of the poor are sick of him as well - Chavez has UNDER 50% support) do not change that basic fact.

And to Gustaf and YoMartin...it's nice to say that we should let democracy play out, but what if, once in power, the ones in charge alter the rules to ensure they are never challenged again? It happened in Weimar Germany, after all...

I honestly believe it´s too exagerated to compare Chavez´ policies to Castro´s. Even two days ago, after threatening the US with cutting oil exports, he signed a contract with Exxon... His rethoric may say one thing (and what he says actually ressembles what many presidents of the region say, after a failed decaded of washington consensus) but his acts say a very different one. And for the civil liberties, I would say he´s been surprisingly respectful of them, especially considering that the opposition tried to remove him through a coup...

It is possible to remove him democratically. There is a dispute now because Chavez says the opposition hasn´t gathered enough signatures for a recall, and the opposition says it has, but eventually the recall will be held (of course, this kind of rather civilised disagreement between govenrment and opposition is not very similar to Weimar...). It´s not as if legal means to replace him had been exhausted, or were irrelevant.

The actual support of Chavez is quite high, altough the exact numbers difer according to different polsters (ones paid by government, another ones hired by the opposition). But still, if you remember that pressure from the people defeated a coup organised by the political and economical establishment, and supported in Europe (there´s a pathetic statement of Jose Maria Aznar, in the name of EU, supporting the coup) and by the US, it´s obvious that the man has quite a strong support. That´s why some analysts (even some who oppose Chavez very strongly) are saying that only Chavez could maintain some order in such polarised situation, because the unity of the opposition (which goes from the left to the right) would disintegrate the minute it took over the government. So, it´s not an easy situation, that could be resolved only by changing the guy in charge.

[YoMartin]

I'm not a socialist or a hugo chavez fans, I'm a (true) social-democrat (not as Jospin or Blair or schroeder or ...). But Venezuela is a poor country with rich ressources and there is a great inequallity between rich and poor. It must change and I believe that Chavez tries to make a good job to make this.

I think there are better socialdemocrats in the region: Lagos (in a bit more than 10 years his party has lowered povery rates by half), Lula, even Kirchner...  But, it´s true, I do like Blair and Schröder...

[Gustaf]

A Liberal Democracy, or a constitutional democracy is perfectly fine.

Fascism involves resentment of weakness and disrespect for individuals. I'd say you're more of a fascist-lib then a libertarian one, and I honestly can't think of a better word than that right now, even though I apologize if you find it offensive.

And fascism has very little to do with democratic socialism, other than the belief in a strong state. And I would never invest in a fascist dictatorship. Compare how rich fascist dictatorships and how much foreign investment they've recieved with that of Western left-leaning demcoracies, like Sweden or Germany.

Gustaf, I certainly don't resent weakness or disrespect individuals.  I do however recognize that in life, weakness loses if challenged by strength.  This isn't a preference of mine, just an observation.  Because this is what I believe I observe, and it seems rational to me, I prefer a Realist foreign policy.  As for domestic politics, I fear the mob, but precisely because I think its dangerous for individual rights - not as you suggest because I disrespect in dividuals.

As for the comparison I made between Fascism and Democratic Socialism - their mutual preference for a strong state was precisely my point.  

Well, the idea that people are stupid and should die if they're unproductive is kind of, well, not positive, to put it mildly. I am sure you respect individuals as long as they're rich and productive. You'd probably say that you can respect people without caring much for them, but I don't think most lbiertarians view people that way. At least not those who I know, and I know many. I know your views on how democracy works etc, but I see no real evidence that things really turn out that way. Individual rights are better protected in democracies than in dictatures, a generalization that holds true almost everywhere.

On fascism and Democratic Socialism, most fascist believe in a state much stronger than socialists do, and even more important, to most socialists the state is an instrument whether for Fascists it's part of the goal. And there's an important distinction between those who thinks killing weak people is a good policy and those who think publicly financed education is. At least I would say so.

[opebo]

A Liberal Democracy, or a constitutional democracy is perfectly fine.

Fascism involves resentment of weakness and disrespect for individuals. I'd say you're more of a fascist-lib then a libertarian one, and I honestly can't think of a better word than that right now, even though I apologize if you find it offensive.

And fascism has very little to do with democratic socialism, other than the belief in a strong state. And I would never invest in a fascist dictatorship. Compare how rich fascist dictatorships and how much foreign investment they've recieved with that of Western left-leaning demcoracies, like Sweden or Germany.

Gustaf, I certainly don't resent weakness or disrespect individuals.  I do however recognize that in life, weakness loses if challenged by strength.  This isn't a preference of mine, just an observation.  Because this is what I believe I observe, and it seems rational to me, I prefer a Realist foreign policy.  As for domestic politics, I fear the mob, but precisely because I think its dangerous for individual rights - not as you suggest because I disrespect in dividuals.

As for the comparison I made between Fascism and Democratic Socialism - their mutual preference for a strong state was precisely my point.  

Well, the idea that people are stupid and should die if they're unproductive is kind of, well, not positive, to put it mildly. I am sure you respect individuals as long as they're rich and productive. You'd probably say that you can respect people without caring much for them, but I don't think most lbiertarians view people that way. At least not those who I know, and I know many. I know your views on how democracy works etc, but I see no real evidence that things really turn out that way. Individual rights are better protected in democracies than in dictatures, a generalization that holds true almost everywhere.

On fascism and Democratic Socialism, most fascist believe in a state much stronger than socialists do, and even more important, to most socialists the state is an instrument whether for Fascists it's part of the goal. And there's an important distinction between those who thinks killing weak people is a good policy and those who think publicly financed education is. At least I would say so.

I think you're putting words in my mouth - when did I ever say anyone 'should' die?  I just think all that (their own survival, etc.) is their own business, not mine.

And I'm quite sure both Socialists and Fascists are for public education - indoctrination don't you know.

[Gustaf]

A Liberal Democracy, or a constitutional democracy is perfectly fine.

Fascism involves resentment of weakness and disrespect for individuals. I'd say you're more of a fascist-lib then a libertarian one, and I honestly can't think of a better word than that right now, even though I apologize if you find it offensive.

And fascism has very little to do with democratic socialism, other than the belief in a strong state. And I would never invest in a fascist dictatorship. Compare how rich fascist dictatorships and how much foreign investment they've recieved with that of Western left-leaning demcoracies, like Sweden or Germany.

Gustaf, I certainly don't resent weakness or disrespect individuals.  I do however recognize that in life, weakness loses if challenged by strength.  This isn't a preference of mine, just an observation.  Because this is what I believe I observe, and it seems rational to me, I prefer a Realist foreign policy.  As for domestic politics, I fear the mob, but precisely because I think its dangerous for individual rights - not as you suggest because I disrespect in dividuals.

As for the comparison I made between Fascism and Democratic Socialism - their mutual preference for a strong state was precisely my point.  

Well, the idea that people are stupid and should die if they're unproductive is kind of, well, not positive, to put it mildly. I am sure you respect individuals as long as they're rich and productive. You'd probably say that you can respect people without caring much for them, but I don't think most lbiertarians view people that way. At least not those who I know, and I know many. I know your views on how democracy works etc, but I see no real evidence that things really turn out that way. Individual rights are better protected in democracies than in dictatures, a generalization that holds true almost everywhere.

On fascism and Democratic Socialism, most fascist believe in a state much stronger than socialists do, and even more important, to most socialists the state is an instrument whether for Fascists it's part of the goal. And there's an important distinction between those who thinks killing weak people is a good policy and those who think publicly financed education is. At least I would say so.

I think you're putting words in my mouth - when did I ever say anyone 'should' die?  I just think all that (their own survival, etc.) is their own business, not mine.

And I'm quite sure both Socialists and Fascists are for public education - indoctrination don't you know.

Well, if they can't take care of themselves you can either say they shouldn't die, implying an intention to do something to prevent it, or say they should die. Passively killing someone is jsut as effective as doing it actively, even if it isn't as amoral.

And Democratic Socialists don't indoctrinate to a very great extent, I live in a country that could be considered that, and goes to school in it. I am sure it is no less indoctrinationg than your schools. There is actually no reason why public shoolc would be more so than private ones.

[WMS]

Hmm...I've gotten quite a decent range of opinions on this topic...

Umengus and YoMartin: at least I've gotten you to say something bad about Cuba. You wouldn't believe how many socialists out there worship the old b*stard in spite of all his oppression.

But on topic: Don't forget Chavez started Venezuela's instability by trying to overthrow a democratically elected government *by force* over a decade ago. I don't trust his democratic inclinations one bit, and he seems to think democracy is fine...as long as that means everyone agrees with him. And he is GUILTY of the use of fraud and intimidation in the past several years - how often have his "Bolivarian Circles" fired on peaceful demonstrators, eh? His outright fraud involving the referendum has, if you look at the Venezuelan Constitution, delayed things enough so that, even if he loses a referendum, he can just appoint his VP until 2006. Come on, he is NOT a social democrat...although he shares social democrats' propensity for imploding national economies.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/survey2004.htm for the latest Freedom House numbers on Venezuela (click on the Table of independent countries), and http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countries.htm for the 2003 complete descriptions (select Venezuela from the Americas list).

A note on the attempted coup: per Stratfor sources at the time, it was more complicated than it appeared. There were FOUR factions in Venezuela - let's call them Far Left (Chavez & Co., backed by Cuba, including militarily) - Center Left (moderates in Chavez' movement) - Center Right (military and opposition moderates; maybe backed by U.S. State Dept.) - Far Right (extremist military/business/religious[yep, Opus Dei]; maybe backed by U.S. CIA).
Act I: CL, CR, and FR combine to topple Chavez.
Act II: FR attempts coup against CL and CR.
Act III: CL and CR swing back to supporting Chavez and the FL vs. the FR; the coup fails.
And it all happened in a day or two...

[Umengus]

Hmm...I've gotten quite a decent range of opinions on this topic...

Umengus and YoMartin: at least I've gotten you to say something bad about Cuba. You wouldn't believe how many socialists out there worship the old b*stard in spite of all his oppression.

But on topic: Don't forget Chavez started Venezuela's instability by trying to overthrow a democratically elected government *by force* over a decade ago. I don't trust his democratic inclinations one bit, and he seems to think democracy is fine...as long as that means everyone agrees with him. And he is GUILTY of the use of fraud and intimidation in the past several years - how often have his "Bolivarian Circles" fired on peaceful demonstrators, eh? His outright fraud involving the referendum has, if you look at the Venezuelan Constitution, delayed things enough so that, even if he loses a referendum, he can just appoint his VP until 2006. Come on, he is NOT a social democrat...although he shares social democrats' propensity for imploding national economies.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/survey2004.htm for the latest Freedom House numbers on Venezuela (click on the Table of independent countries), and http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countries.htm for the 2003 complete descriptions (select Venezuela from the Americas list).

A note on the attempted coup: per Stratfor sources at the time, it was more complicated than it appeared. There were FOUR factions in Venezuela - let's call them Far Left (Chavez & Co., backed by Cuba, including militarily) - Center Left (moderates in Chavez' movement) - Center Right (military and opposition moderates; maybe backed by U.S. State Dept.) - Far Right (extremist military/business/religious[yep, Opus Dei]; maybe backed by U.S. CIA).
Act I: CL, CR, and FR combine to topple Chavez.
Act II: FR attempts coup against CL and CR.
Act III: CL and CR swing back to supporting Chavez and the FL vs. the FR; the coup fails.
And it all happened in a day or two...

Cuba is not a democracy and it's not a problem for me to say that. It's true that there are some socialist leaders who "like" Cuba but I think that is finished (because today, the opression is clear). Today, Castro is alone. But I must also say that US did not contributed to the advent of the democracy in Cuba and without embargo, Cuba would be a democracy today I think.

About Chavez, I think that there are lots of missinformations. Private media are all against Chavez and world newspapers (as el pais) give not a good information (by the play of alliances between media groups and the fact that they take information of private media). And the press is mainly partisane. It's not a good thing to see the true.

If you understand french , you can read a good analyse of the situation (an article of "el mundo").

http://www.courrierinternational.com/actual/analyse.asp

In last, the fraud of Chavez is difficult to prove because the information is not very objective.

Thanks for the links. It's interressant. But it doens't change my opinion.

[WMS]

[my stuff - this is getting too long]

Cuba is not a democracy and it's not a problem for me to say that. It's true that there are some socialist leaders who "like" Cuba but I think that is finished (because today, the opression is clear). Today, Castro is alone. But I must also say that US did not contributed to the advent of the democracy in Cuba and without embargo, Cuba would be a democracy today I think.

About Chavez, I think that there are lots of missinformations. Private media are all against Chavez and world newspapers (as el pais) give not a good information (by the play of alliances between media groups and the fact that they take information of private media). And the press is mainly partisane. It's not a good thing to see the true.

If you understand french , you can read a good analyse of the situation (an article of "el mundo").

http://www.courrierinternational.com/actual/analyse.asp

In last, the fraud of Chavez is difficult to prove because the information is not very objective.

Thanks for the links. It's interressant. But it doens't change my opinion.

Ah, the international left...as long as a country hates the U.S., anything can be forgiven...

I think Cuba would've turned out how it did anyway. Remember, the U.S. actually supported Castro in the beginning, before he turned into a hard-left Commie dictator. Castro wanted to be the new caudillo, no matter what. So the U.S.' role has been to provide a convenient excuse for all of Castro's failures.

One reason the private media in Venezuela is hostile to Chavez is because he's trying to take control over them so they can't EVER criticize him. And I highly doubt the international media is telling falsehoods - I leave that to the leftist media to do. And no, I can't read French, so I couldn't read the article...

Let's see... http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4591392&section=news
Today's political interference in the electoral process by Chavez...come on, you don't consider what Chavez & Co. did to the referendum signatures fraud?

http://www.oas.org/OASpage/press_releases/press_release.asp?sCodigo=IACHR-08
And here's the OAS expressing concern over the rule of law in five countries in the Americas...note the part about Venezuelan violence (which I noticed you didn't address, Umengus)

And, again, what about the attacks on non-violent demonstrators by the "Bolivarian Circles"? It's happened before (source: Stratfor.com), in February 2004 (particularly Febuary 27), May 2003 (esp. the 1st and the 24th), February 2003 (esp. the 19th and 20th), and January 2003 (esp. the 3rd and 20th), and October 2002 (esp. the 10th), and August 2002 (esp. the 2nd), and ESPECIALLY April 11, 2002, when a peaceful demonstration was fired upon by Chavez' supporters, killing 27 and injuring 88 - *that* sparked the short-lived coup against Chavez. It was CHAVEZ who started the whole cycle of instability and violence, Umengus, despite what any leftist sources say.

Oh, here's something from Human Rights Watch, that den of fascists... http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/05/venezu8072.htm

and more http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

and http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/21/venezu6980.htm

and one more bit from Amnesty International http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530022004?open&of=ENG-VEN

He's turning Venezuela into, at BEST, the PRI-led Mexico...of 1968, you know, what with the killings of protestors and all that. At WORST, he's turning Venezuela into Cuba.

[Umengus]

[my stuff - this is getting too long]

Ah, the international left...as long as a country hates the U.S., anything can be forgiven...

I think Cuba would've turned out how it did anyway. Remember, the U.S. actually supported Castro in the beginning, before he turned into a hard-left Commie dictator. Castro wanted to be the new caudillo, no matter what. So the U.S.' role has been to provide a convenient excuse for all of Castro's failures.

One reason the private media in Venezuela is hostile to Chavez is because he's trying to take control over them so they can't EVER criticize him. And I highly doubt the international media is telling falsehoods - I leave that to the leftist media to do. And no, I can't read French, so I couldn't read the article...

Let's see... http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4591392&section=news
Today's political interference in the electoral process by Chavez...come on, you don't consider what Chavez & Co. did to the referendum signatures fraud?

http://www.oas.org/OASpage/press_releases/press_release.asp?sCodigo=IACHR-08
And here's the OAS expressing concern over the rule of law in five countries in the Americas...note the part about Venezuelan violence (which I noticed you didn't address, Umengus)

And, again, what about the attacks on non-violent demonstrators by the "Bolivarian Circles"? It's happened before (source: Stratfor.com), in February 2004 (particularly Febuary 27), May 2003 (esp. the 1st and the 24th), February 2003 (esp. the 19th and 20th), and January 2003 (esp. the 3rd and 20th), and October 2002 (esp. the 10th), and August 2002 (esp. the 2nd), and ESPECIALLY April 11, 2002, when a peaceful demonstration was fired upon by Chavez' supporters, killing 27 and injuring 88 - *that* sparked the short-lived coup against Chavez. It was CHAVEZ who started the whole cycle of instability and violence, Umengus, despite what any leftist sources say.

Oh, here's something from Human Rights Watch, that den of fascists... http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/05/venezu8072.htm

and more http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

and http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/21/venezu6980.htm

and one more bit from Amnesty International http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530022004?open&of=ENG-VEN

He's turning Venezuela into, at BEST, the PRI-led Mexico...of 1968, you know, what with the killings of protestors and all that. At WORST, he's turning Venezuela into Cuba.

Castro is not an angel. It's a dictator. Usa is (still) a democracy. No problems. But I think that the US policy over Cuba was and is very bad. I agree with you when you say that badly US policy is a convenient excuse for all castro's failures. Consequently, USA must stop his stupid policy, must remove embargo. thus, Castro will not have any more excuses and his dictatorship will be clear.
But if some left-leaders liked Castro, it is for the medical system in cuba which is very good (but less than the european system which is the best in the world and less expansive than the US system (you can see the exanditure according to the GDP). It's not a good reason to like Castro but it's a fact...

About Chavez, I don't think that we will be able to agree but I think that the best solution is to wait 2006 to have presidential election. Before that, I think that opposition must let make Chavez in his policies. If the policy of Chavez is bad, he will not be re-elected. To check that elections are in correct conditions, ONU or another  international organisation could be in venezuelian.

[YoMartin]

I would never defend Cuba. I believe in some socialdemocratic ideas and some classical liberal ones. Castro´s revolution at first appeared to go a democratization but very quickly he turned into a new dictator. He is quite popular in Latinamerica (he´s got the US to thank for that) but I honestly hate the guy. I don´t even like Chavez. But this continent knows enought about coups to be favouring a new one. You´re right about Chavez delaying tricks (I think I also mentioned them a few days ago) but the I´m confident the referendum will be held.

About Freedom House rankings, I read some american political scientists (Mainwaring I think) saying that it has always been very harsh on left wing politicians and soft on right wingers. I´ll try to find some examples, they showed that very clearly.

I don´t agree Chavez himself created the polarisation (he is the face of a more structural problem), but, still, at this point is more importante to see who could handle this situation than finding someone to blame for it.

There´s been violence from Chavez side, that´s true. But from the other side they even resorted to a violent change of government! I mean, there are few saints in this situation...

[WMS]

To Umengus: Well, my view on Cuba is that we should either drop the embargo on it or just invade and topple Castro. One or the other, since the status quo has spectacularly failed to accomplish anything at all...

The medical system is no reason to support totalitarian rule...and on that topic, I agree that there is something wrong when the U.S. spends more per person on health care than anyone else in the world and yet not everyone is covered and there are several problems with the system. In THIS case, I think the market has failed to handle health care well.

To YoMartin: I disagree on Freedom House. They strike me as very Centrist politically and very pro-Democracy internationally. It's their critics who I am suspicious of...and if they're so biased, how come Saudi Arabia gets two 7's? Plenty of other U.S. allies come out not looking too good (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, etc.). I admire Freedom House for NOT letting themselves be lulled by the hard left's argument that any political repression is justified by free health care and economic support for the poor...

And to both of you, I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in Chavez's commitment to democracy and to free and fair elections...the bit with invalidating over a MILLION signatures was really over the line...

[JohnFKennedy]

Castro is still very popular in Cuba isn't he? if they all like him, what is the problem with him ruling as a dictator, if he is what the people want, then that is fine by me, if the people don't actually want him and are severely oppressed then I would agree to his removal.

[Gustaf]

Castro is still very popular in Cuba isn't he? if they all like him, what is the problem with him ruling as a dictator, if he is what the people want, then that is fine by me, if the people don't actually want him and are severely oppressed then I would agree to his removal.

They're oppressed...that's why they flee in small boats and drown...and they have to lsiten to his speeches...man...

[YoMartin]

To Umengus: Well, my view on Cuba is that we should either drop the embargo on it or just invade and topple Castro. One or the other, since the status quo has spectacularly failed to accomplish anything at all...

The medical system is no reason to support totalitarian rule...and on that topic, I agree that there is something wrong when the U.S. spends more per person on health care than anyone else in the world and yet not everyone is covered and there are several problems with the system. In THIS case, I think the market has failed to handle health care well.

To YoMartin: I disagree on Freedom House. They strike me as very Centrist politically and very pro-Democracy internationally. It's their critics who I am suspicious of...and if they're so biased, how come Saudi Arabia gets two 7's? Plenty of other U.S. allies come out not looking too good (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, etc.). I admire Freedom House for NOT letting themselves be lulled by the hard left's argument that any political repression is justified by free health care and economic support for the poor...

And to both of you, I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in Chavez's commitment to democracy and to free and fair elections...the bit with invalidating over a MILLION signatures was really over the line...

At least until a few yaears ago -don´t know now-, Freedom´s House didn´t say what criteria it used in its classification. That´s a very big problem if you try to be serious and realiable. And, at least in latinamerica, they´ve always favoured right wing governments. In the 80´s they gave a higher score to El Salvador (under extremely repressive right wing military rule) than to Nicaragua (where free elections where held by that time, but were won by the left). They put a better score to Brazil in 1984 (under right wing military rule) than in 1990 (democracy).

Venezuela: it´s not that Chavez himself declared invalid some signatures. It was a court. You may say -and you´d probably be right- that most of those judges were appointed during his administration and were his allies. But that happens everywhere. George W Bush is now president only because his party had appointed more judges in the supreme court than his opponent´s... and nobody would ever consider a coup to remove him from office. The same goes with Chavez. There are flaws everywhere, but for some reason coups are only valid when it comes to latinamerica and to left wing governments...

[WMS]

I agree with Gustaf, by the way. And to JohnFKennedy...yeah, Castro's "popular", just like Big Brother was popular in 1984.

YoMartin: I would quibble with the El Salvador and Nicaragua definitions, in as much as El Salvador had a kind of "electoral authoritarianism" (fairly free elections combined with repression - ah, the 1980's!) and Nicaragua's 1984 elections were not all that free and fair. Remember, just because a government isn't actively killing swaths of civilians doesn't mean it's free, and sometimes freer governments are more violent out of necessity (case in point...Colombia. Go Colombian government! Wipe out the antidemocratic rebels backed by Venezuela, Cuba, and drug traffickers! Go Plan Colombia! Screw the Sao Paulo Group, or whatever that sack of anti-American Latin American lefties calls themselves! ).

I'll leave a debate over the...interesting judgments of everyone involved in the 2000 electoral legal debate to the fanatic partisans. But it is nowhere near as bad as what Chavez is doing. The Supreme Court tried to reverse the HIGHLY biased decision of the electoral commission, but I think the Chavistas are trying to, in violation of their own constitution, overturn it. This is fraud, pure and simple, and I'm getting tired of international leftists defending it.

And cheers to ARENA and a raspberry to the FMLN!

P.S. I'll cheerfully support coups in Latin America, Africa, ALL parts of Asia, and even some places in Europe (Belarus, anyone...?). I'm an equal-opportunity crusader for democracy (or from the perspective of the international left, I'm a rabid American Yankee imperialist running dog...)