Venezuela

[dunn]

Kerry rebuffs Venezuela's Chavez
 
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) -- U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a dubious democrat hostile to U.S. interests, delivering a slap in the face to the leftist leader who had portrayed Kerry as a potential friend.

The Kerry statement on his Web site made front-page news in Venezuela on Monday, nearly two weeks after Chavez had publicly praised the Democrat contender, hailing his health care plans and likening him to assassinated U.S. President John Kennedy.

In his declaration dated March 19, the Massachusetts senator accused Chavez of undermining Venezuela's democracy, supporting Colombian rebels and "narco-terrorists" and trying to torpedo a constitutional bid by foes to hold a referendum on his rule.

Condemning Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests," Kerry said the United States should lead international pressure to persuade him to allow a recall vote.

Venezuelan officials did not immediately respond.

Political analysts said the harsh condemnation of the populist Venezuelan leader aimed to tell him he should not consider Kerry an ideological soul mate united through their opposition to U.S. President George W. Bush.

"This gives no reassurance to Chavez. I don't think he's going to find a lot of sympathy from Kerry and the statement makes that clear," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank.

[YoMartin]

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...)

I´m sorry, but there´s no comparison between El Salvador and Nicaragua back then. Unless you support the idea that the military have the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to be tortured and murdered, I don´t see the "need" -as you call it- for the state to kill thousands of people...

The question is how do you know about the bias of the electoral comissions decission. How do you know that? It´s the word of the government against the word of the opposition... I just don´t see how you can be so sure that the first is a fraudulent lier and the second is honestly telling the truth. I think there are lies in both sides. The opposition has already admitted that some of the signatures belonged to dead or underaged people...  That´s fraud too.

PS: I hope nobody outside the US "cheerfully support" a coup there, based on the fact that the 2000 elections were "HIGHLY bias" and "fraudulent". I hope no "equal-opportunity crusader for democracy " outside the US decides that a democracy where you need to be a multi millionaire to compete is not a real democracy. I really hope so because I believe in international law and don´t believe in "states of nature" where everybody can simply interfere in other people´s bussiness based on what its won conceptions of the "Good" say.

Besides, it remains to be proved whether nowadays foreign invasions can build a stable democracy or not. My guess is that these things don´t work so easily...

BTW: if you´re planning to "cheerfully" support any invasions in southamerica, let me know where, so I get the hell out of here before the bombs start to explode in the streets...

[YoMartin]

I took that "test":
Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

My closest "ally" would be the Dalai Lama... I´ll have to learn what his basic ideas are, then...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I took that "test":
Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

My closest "ally" would be the Dalai Lama... I´ll have to learn what his basic ideas are, then...

Free Tibet!

[JohnFKennedy]

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

just something I was told by a teacher.....

[YoMartin]

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

just something I was told by a teacher.....

No, I really do think he would win an election. But that doesn´t change the fact that he is a tyrant.

[WMS]

[fun teasing of international leftists condensed]

I´m sorry, but there´s no comparison between El Salvador and Nicaragua back then. Unless you support the idea that the military have the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to be tortured and murdered, I don´t see the "need" -as you call it- for the state to kill thousands of people...

The question is how do you know about the bias of the electoral comissions decission. How do you know that? It´s the word of the government against the word of the opposition... I just don´t see how you can be so sure that the first is a fraudulent lier and the second is honestly telling the truth. I think there are lies in both sides. The opposition has already admitted that some of the signatures belonged to dead or underaged people...  That´s fraud too.

PS: I hope nobody outside the US "cheerfully support" a coup there, based on the fact that the 2000 elections were "HIGHLY bias" and "fraudulent". I hope no "equal-opportunity crusader for democracy " outside the US decides that a democracy where you need to be a multi millionaire to compete is not a real democracy. I really hope so because I believe in international law and don´t believe in "states of nature" where everybody can simply interfere in other people´s bussiness based on what its won conceptions of the "Good" say.

Besides, it remains to be proved whether nowadays foreign invasions can build a stable democracy or not. My guess is that these things don´t work so easily...

BTW: if you´re planning to "cheerfully" support any invasions in southamerica, let me know where, so I get the hell out of here before the bombs start to explode in the streets...

Well, I pretty much disliked BOTH sides of the El Salvador civil war, but in retrospect supported the Christian Democrats who tried to hold things together in the center while both sides tried to kill them. I disagreed with the wanton massacres, but even when you're trying to be 'nice', civilians die in civil wars. Mind you, things were very complicated in El Salvador back then - there were more than 2 sides, for one thing. Interesting info (from a liberal teacher at that!): For a brief, shining moment in 1980, there was an opportunity for the moderates in the military, the moderates among the rebels, and the moderates among the politicians to come together and stop BOTH the left and the right. But it failed, and 80,000+ died instead...

As for the electoral commission, I've used Stratfor.biz (with a 'demonstration' site, Stratfor.com) as a major source, because they have a LOT of sources around the world. Note what I posted before about the brief coup - who else would've dug all THAT out, or went on to point out how Venezuela was an example of the U.S. State and Defense Depts seriously not cooperating with each other. But back to the commission...aren't the number of invalid signatures RATHER high? Over a million? And hasn't Chavez gone out of his way to ensure that that ruling can't be challenged? Note the latest twist, that the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, controlled by Chavez, blocked the Venezuelan's Supreme Court's Electoral Chamber's decision overturning the invalidation of the signatures by the National Electoral Council. And about that invalidation...did not the NEC turn incomplete voter registry lists to the government and opposition? Doesn't that make it hard to see how they determined the signatures were invalid? And if the opposition lied, well, then they're dumb.

As for the rest of your post, a few thoughts: 1.) If international law is so important, then shouldn't the U.S. have stayed out of Haiti in 1994? After all, the coup and subsequent killings were an "internal" affair of Haiti, and under international law, the U.S. really had no right to do anything. 2.) And would you have supported an intervention *against international law* to stop the 1978-1984 genocide in Guatemala? 3.) What about the outside intervention against apartheid South Africa? 4.) And as for intervening states, how about Venezuela's intervention in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia (supporting the hard-left indigenous groups who have toppled two *democratically elected* governments in Ecuador and Bolivia, and who are looking at other countries in the Andes)? And let's not get into Cuba's interventions, since you don't like Cuba's government anyway. 5.) Be careful about wedding yourself to a notion of international law that forbids intervention...it can be as much negative as positive. And I support a long-term world democracy-building plan, myself - I think, apart from the moral benefits, it would make the world more stable. But you can't fight repression without intervention...

And since you asked so nicely I would definitely invade Cuba if I had a choice. Haiti's been taken care of, but I would carefully watch Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Antigua and Barbuda, Paraguay, Suriname (damn Desi Bourtase!) and of course Venezuela. I wouldn't invade them yet, but I might try to intervene to support prodemocracy forces in other ways.
Yes, I'm the type of foreign policy 'liberal' who gives everyone heartburn...

[WMS]

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

just something I was told by a teacher.....

No, I really do think he would win an election. But that doesn´t change the fact that he is a tyrant.

To JFK: That's OK! Teachers can say the dumbest things sometimes...

To YoMartin (again): You're probably right about the election, and definitely right about the tyranny...

[YoMartin]

[fun teasing of international leftists condensed]

I´m sorry, but there´s no comparison between El Salvador and Nicaragua back then. Unless you support the idea that the military have the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to be tortured and murdered, I don´t see the "need" -as you call it- for the state to kill thousands of people...

The question is how do you know about the bias of the electoral comissions decission. How do you know that? It´s the word of the government against the word of the opposition... I just don´t see how you can be so sure that the first is a fraudulent lier and the second is honestly telling the truth. I think there are lies in both sides. The opposition has already admitted that some of the signatures belonged to dead or underaged people...  That´s fraud too.

PS: I hope nobody outside the US "cheerfully support" a coup there, based on the fact that the 2000 elections were "HIGHLY bias" and "fraudulent". I hope no "equal-opportunity crusader for democracy " outside the US decides that a democracy where you need to be a multi millionaire to compete is not a real democracy. I really hope so because I believe in international law and don´t believe in "states of nature" where everybody can simply interfere in other people´s bussiness based on what its won conceptions of the "Good" say.

Besides, it remains to be proved whether nowadays foreign invasions can build a stable democracy or not. My guess is that these things don´t work so easily...

BTW: if you´re planning to "cheerfully" support any invasions in southamerica, let me know where, so I get the hell out of here before the bombs start to explode in the streets...

Well, I pretty much disliked BOTH sides of the El Salvador civil war, but in retrospect supported the Christian Democrats who tried to hold things together in the center while both sides tried to kill them. I disagreed with the wanton massacres, but even when you're trying to be 'nice', civilians die in civil wars. Mind you, things were very complicated in El Salvador back then - there were more than 2 sides, for one thing. Interesting info (from a liberal teacher at that!): For a brief, shining moment in 1980, there was an opportunity for the moderates in the military, the moderates among the rebels, and the moderates among the politicians to come together and stop BOTH the left and the right. But it failed, and 80,000+ died instead...

As for the electoral commission, I've used Stratfor.biz (with a 'demonstration' site, Stratfor.com) as a major source, because they have a LOT of sources around the world. Note what I posted before about the brief coup - who else would've dug all THAT out, or went on to point out how Venezuela was an example of the U.S. State and Defense Depts seriously not cooperating with each other. But back to the commission...aren't the number of invalid signatures RATHER high? Over a million? And hasn't Chavez gone out of his way to ensure that that ruling can't be challenged? Note the latest twist, that the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, controlled by Chavez, blocked the Venezuelan's Supreme Court's Electoral Chamber's decision overturning the invalidation of the signatures by the National Electoral Council. And about that invalidation...did not the NEC turn incomplete voter registry lists to the government and opposition? Doesn't that make it hard to see how they determined the signatures were invalid? And if the opposition lied, well, then they're dumb.

As for the rest of your post, a few thoughts: 1.) If international law is so important, then shouldn't the U.S. have stayed out of Haiti in 1994? After all, the coup and subsequent killings were an "internal" affair of Haiti, and under international law, the U.S. really had no right to do anything. 2.) And would you have supported an intervention *against international law* to stop the 1978-1984 genocide in Guatemala? 3.) What about the outside intervention against apartheid South Africa? 4.) And as for intervening states, how about Venezuela's intervention in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia (supporting the hard-left indigenous groups who have toppled two *democratically elected* governments in Ecuador and Bolivia, and who are looking at other countries in the Andes)? And let's not get into Cuba's interventions, since you don't like Cuba's government anyway. 5.) Be careful about wedding yourself to a notion of international law that forbids intervention...it can be as much negative as positive. And I support a long-term world democracy-building plan, myself - I think, apart from the moral benefits, it would make the world more stable. But you can't fight repression without intervention...

And since you asked so nicely I would definitely invade Cuba if I had a choice. Haiti's been taken care of, but I would carefully watch Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Antigua and Barbuda, Paraguay, Suriname (damn Desi Bourtase!) and of course Venezuela. I wouldn't invade them yet, but I might try to intervene to support prodemocracy forces in other ways.
Yes, I'm the type of foreign policy 'liberal' who gives everyone heartburn...

I don´t like the words "I told you", but the referendum is on... It was just a matter of time, not a matter of tanks.

[WMS]

[fun teasing of international leftists condensed]

I´m sorry, but there´s no comparison between El Salvador and Nicaragua back then. Unless you support the idea that the military have the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to be tortured and murdered, I don´t see the "need" -as you call it- for the state to kill thousands of people...

The question is how do you know about the bias of the electoral comissions decission. How do you know that? It´s the word of the government against the word of the opposition... I just don´t see how you can be so sure that the first is a fraudulent lier and the second is honestly telling the truth. I think there are lies in both sides. The opposition has already admitted that some of the signatures belonged to dead or underaged people...  That´s fraud too.

PS: I hope nobody outside the US "cheerfully support" a coup there, based on the fact that the 2000 elections were "HIGHLY bias" and "fraudulent". I hope no "equal-opportunity crusader for democracy " outside the US decides that a democracy where you need to be a multi millionaire to compete is not a real democracy. I really hope so because I believe in international law and don´t believe in "states of nature" where everybody can simply interfere in other people´s bussiness based on what its won conceptions of the "Good" say.

Besides, it remains to be proved whether nowadays foreign invasions can build a stable democracy or not. My guess is that these things don´t work so easily...

BTW: if you´re planning to "cheerfully" support any invasions in southamerica, let me know where, so I get the hell out of here before the bombs start to explode in the streets...

Well, I pretty much disliked BOTH sides of the El Salvador civil war, but in retrospect supported the Christian Democrats who tried to hold things together in the center while both sides tried to kill them. I disagreed with the wanton massacres, but even when you're trying to be 'nice', civilians die in civil wars. Mind you, things were very complicated in El Salvador back then - there were more than 2 sides, for one thing. Interesting info (from a liberal teacher at that!): For a brief, shining moment in 1980, there was an opportunity for the moderates in the military, the moderates among the rebels, and the moderates among the politicians to come together and stop BOTH the left and the right. But it failed, and 80,000+ died instead...

As for the electoral commission, I've used Stratfor.biz (with a 'demonstration' site, Stratfor.com) as a major source, because they have a LOT of sources around the world. Note what I posted before about the brief coup - who else would've dug all THAT out, or went on to point out how Venezuela was an example of the U.S. State and Defense Depts seriously not cooperating with each other. But back to the commission...aren't the number of invalid signatures RATHER high? Over a million? And hasn't Chavez gone out of his way to ensure that that ruling can't be challenged? Note the latest twist, that the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, controlled by Chavez, blocked the Venezuelan's Supreme Court's Electoral Chamber's decision overturning the invalidation of the signatures by the National Electoral Council. And about that invalidation...did not the NEC turn incomplete voter registry lists to the government and opposition? Doesn't that make it hard to see how they determined the signatures were invalid? And if the opposition lied, well, then they're dumb.

As for the rest of your post, a few thoughts: 1.) If international law is so important, then shouldn't the U.S. have stayed out of Haiti in 1994? After all, the coup and subsequent killings were an "internal" affair of Haiti, and under international law, the U.S. really had no right to do anything. 2.) And would you have supported an intervention *against international law* to stop the 1978-1984 genocide in Guatemala? 3.) What about the outside intervention against apartheid South Africa? 4.) And as for intervening states, how about Venezuela's intervention in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia (supporting the hard-left indigenous groups who have toppled two *democratically elected* governments in Ecuador and Bolivia, and who are looking at other countries in the Andes)? And let's not get into Cuba's interventions, since you don't like Cuba's government anyway. 5.) Be careful about wedding yourself to a notion of international law that forbids intervention...it can be as much negative as positive. And I support a long-term world democracy-building plan, myself - I think, apart from the moral benefits, it would make the world more stable. But you can't fight repression without intervention...

And since you asked so nicely I would definitely invade Cuba if I had a choice. Haiti's been taken care of, but I would carefully watch Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Antigua and Barbuda, Paraguay, Suriname (damn Desi Bourtase!) and of course Venezuela. I wouldn't invade them yet, but I might try to intervene to support prodemocracy forces in other ways.
Yes, I'm the type of foreign policy 'liberal' who gives everyone heartburn...

I don´t like the words "I told you", but the referendum is on... It was just a matter of time, not a matter of tanks.

Chavez is still up to something - he has not, at ALL, acted in a democratic fashion during all of this. I suspect...
1. He'll find some other way to stop the referendum or
2. He'll cheat like mad in the referendum or
3. He'll delay it just enough so that even if he loses, he'll be able to simply appoint his VP and continue his rule from behind the scenes. If the referendum is held after August 16, a new presidential election will NOT take place and the VP appointment will happen instead.

Watch and see, YoMartin...this isn't even close to finished yet. Maybe Chavez will unleash all of those Cubans he's stuffed his goverment and the armed forces with on his opponents to intimidate them - that's happened often enough - or maybe he'll refuse to allow international election observers like the OAS of the Carter Center to monitor the fairness of the election - plenty of precedent for that, too. Chavez wants to be caudillo too much to let this happen, and the National Election Council is controlled by his loyalists...so he wouldn't "let" this happen unless he had a plan ready...

[YoMartin]

[fun teasing of international leftists condensed]

I´m sorry, but there´s no comparison between El Salvador and Nicaragua back then. Unless you support the idea that the military have the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to be tortured and murdered, I don´t see the "need" -as you call it- for the state to kill thousands of people...

The question is how do you know about the bias of the electoral comissions decission. How do you know that? It´s the word of the government against the word of the opposition... I just don´t see how you can be so sure that the first is a fraudulent lier and the second is honestly telling the truth. I think there are lies in both sides. The opposition has already admitted that some of the signatures belonged to dead or underaged people...  That´s fraud too.

PS: I hope nobody outside the US "cheerfully support" a coup there, based on the fact that the 2000 elections were "HIGHLY bias" and "fraudulent". I hope no "equal-opportunity crusader for democracy " outside the US decides that a democracy where you need to be a multi millionaire to compete is not a real democracy. I really hope so because I believe in international law and don´t believe in "states of nature" where everybody can simply interfere in other people´s bussiness based on what its won conceptions of the "Good" say.

Besides, it remains to be proved whether nowadays foreign invasions can build a stable democracy or not. My guess is that these things don´t work so easily...

BTW: if you´re planning to "cheerfully" support any invasions in southamerica, let me know where, so I get the hell out of here before the bombs start to explode in the streets...

Well, I pretty much disliked BOTH sides of the El Salvador civil war, but in retrospect supported the Christian Democrats who tried to hold things together in the center while both sides tried to kill them. I disagreed with the wanton massacres, but even when you're trying to be 'nice', civilians die in civil wars. Mind you, things were very complicated in El Salvador back then - there were more than 2 sides, for one thing. Interesting info (from a liberal teacher at that!): For a brief, shining moment in 1980, there was an opportunity for the moderates in the military, the moderates among the rebels, and the moderates among the politicians to come together and stop BOTH the left and the right. But it failed, and 80,000+ died instead...

As for the electoral commission, I've used Stratfor.biz (with a 'demonstration' site, Stratfor.com) as a major source, because they have a LOT of sources around the world. Note what I posted before about the brief coup - who else would've dug all THAT out, or went on to point out how Venezuela was an example of the U.S. State and Defense Depts seriously not cooperating with each other. But back to the commission...aren't the number of invalid signatures RATHER high? Over a million? And hasn't Chavez gone out of his way to ensure that that ruling can't be challenged? Note the latest twist, that the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, controlled by Chavez, blocked the Venezuelan's Supreme Court's Electoral Chamber's decision overturning the invalidation of the signatures by the National Electoral Council. And about that invalidation...did not the NEC turn incomplete voter registry lists to the government and opposition? Doesn't that make it hard to see how they determined the signatures were invalid? And if the opposition lied, well, then they're dumb.

As for the rest of your post, a few thoughts: 1.) If international law is so important, then shouldn't the U.S. have stayed out of Haiti in 1994? After all, the coup and subsequent killings were an "internal" affair of Haiti, and under international law, the U.S. really had no right to do anything. 2.) And would you have supported an intervention *against international law* to stop the 1978-1984 genocide in Guatemala? 3.) What about the outside intervention against apartheid South Africa? 4.) And as for intervening states, how about Venezuela's intervention in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia (supporting the hard-left indigenous groups who have toppled two *democratically elected* governments in Ecuador and Bolivia, and who are looking at other countries in the Andes)? And let's not get into Cuba's interventions, since you don't like Cuba's government anyway. 5.) Be careful about wedding yourself to a notion of international law that forbids intervention...it can be as much negative as positive. And I support a long-term world democracy-building plan, myself - I think, apart from the moral benefits, it would make the world more stable. But you can't fight repression without intervention...

And since you asked so nicely I would definitely invade Cuba if I had a choice. Haiti's been taken care of, but I would carefully watch Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Antigua and Barbuda, Paraguay, Suriname (damn Desi Bourtase!) and of course Venezuela. I wouldn't invade them yet, but I might try to intervene to support prodemocracy forces in other ways.
Yes, I'm the type of foreign policy 'liberal' who gives everyone heartburn...

I don´t like the words "I told you", but the referendum is on... It was just a matter of time, not a matter of tanks.

Chavez is still up to something - he has not, at ALL, acted in a democratic fashion during all of this. I suspect...
1. He'll find some other way to stop the referendum or
2. He'll cheat like mad in the referendum or
3. He'll delay it just enough so that even if he loses, he'll be able to simply appoint his VP and continue his rule from behind the scenes. If the referendum is held after August 16, a new presidential election will NOT take place and the VP appointment will happen instead.

Watch and see, YoMartin...this isn't even close to finished yet. Maybe Chavez will unleash all of those Cubans he's stuffed his goverment and the armed forces with on his opponents to intimidate them - that's happened often enough - or maybe he'll refuse to allow international election observers like the OAS of the Carter Center to monitor the fairness of the election - plenty of precedent for that, too. Chavez wants to be caudillo too much to let this happen, and the National Election Council is controlled by his loyalists...so he wouldn't "let" this happen unless he had a plan ready...

I have no doubt that Chavez´s is not a big fan of democracy, especially if he can be defeated (although we should accept that the possibility of a recall was introduced by him in the constitution, and it´s quite rare in the world). But you seem to overestimate his possiblities to do whatever he wants with this situation. Venezuela is not a Middle East country where three guys can control everything. He´s got a large number of the population movilized against him, all private media too, and strong international pressure to accept the referendum before August 16th. I don´t know what special techniques of intimidation "all of those Cubans he's stuffed his goverment" (?)may have over the opposition, but so far they haven´t worked...

I don´t like Chavez (nor much of his opponents either), and I hope he losses the referendum, but I honestly doubt that will happen. The opposition got 2.5 million signatures, and they need 3.5 million votes to remove Chavez. Where will that extra million come from? Even if they won the referendum, then they would have to win the presidency, and it´s much easier to be united against someone than for something.

[WMS]

[what say we cut this down to size a bit, YoMartin?]

Chavez is still up to something - he has not, at ALL, acted in a democratic fashion during all of this. I suspect...
1. He'll find some other way to stop the referendum or
2. He'll cheat like mad in the referendum or
3. He'll delay it just enough so that even if he loses, he'll be able to simply appoint his VP and continue his rule from behind the scenes. If the referendum is held after August 16, a new presidential election will NOT take place and the VP appointment will happen instead.

Watch and see, YoMartin...this isn't even close to finished yet. Maybe Chavez will unleash all of those Cubans he's stuffed his goverment and the armed forces with on his opponents to intimidate them - that's happened often enough - or maybe he'll refuse to allow international election observers like the OAS of the Carter Center to monitor the fairness of the election - plenty of precedent for that, too. Chavez wants to be caudillo too much to let this happen, and the National Election Council is controlled by his loyalists...so he wouldn't "let" this happen unless he had a plan ready...

I have no doubt that Chavez´s is not a big fan of democracy, especially if he can be defeated (although we should accept that the possibility of a recall was introduced by him in the constitution, and it´s quite rare in the world). But you seem to overestimate his possiblities to do whatever he wants with this situation. Venezuela is not a Middle East country where three guys can control everything. He´s got a large number of the population movilized against him, all private media too, and strong international pressure to accept the referendum before August 16th. I don´t know what special techniques of intimidation "all of those Cubans he's stuffed his goverment" (?)may have over the opposition, but so far they haven´t worked...

Chavez wouldn't have accepted this if he thought he could lose. I'm waiting for his fraud and intimidation campaign to begin. He isn't caudillo...yet. He's come close before, as the violence he instigated back in 2002 indicated (and THAT sparked the coup attempt - Chavez started the use of force in 1990's internal Venezuelan politics - remember his own coup attempts?). By the way, who's providing the "strong international pressure"? All I've heard is Chavez condemning the U.S., Chavez condemning the OAS, Chavez condemning the Carter Center, etc. And so far Chavez' tactics of intimidation have done their job in delaying the referendum...until just recently. The Cubans are there, YoMartin...usually in the guise of 'guest workers' or something like that. It's funny how many of these 'guests' have ended up in military or paramilitary units...and the U.S. has begun to mention this (not a lot, given other concerns, but here and there).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chavez' opponents failure to get along has not helped them at all...there's quite a range of interests, but no one leader (lucky for them...otherwise I suspect they'd meet with an 'accident'). In an honest election, the opposition would probably oust Chavez...but I have no idea how a new presidential election would go. The Chavistas may count on winning one of those plurality victories that both of us hate, natch? I don't think the Chavistas would win any sort of runoff or STV vote or anything like that...

[YoMartin]

[what say we cut this down to size a bit, YoMartin?]

Chavez is still up to something - he has not, at ALL, acted in a democratic fashion during all of this. I suspect...
1. He'll find some other way to stop the referendum or
2. He'll cheat like mad in the referendum or
3. He'll delay it just enough so that even if he loses, he'll be able to simply appoint his VP and continue his rule from behind the scenes. If the referendum is held after August 16, a new presidential election will NOT take place and the VP appointment will happen instead.

Watch and see, YoMartin...this isn't even close to finished yet. Maybe Chavez will unleash all of those Cubans he's stuffed his goverment and the armed forces with on his opponents to intimidate them - that's happened often enough - or maybe he'll refuse to allow international election observers like the OAS of the Carter Center to monitor the fairness of the election - plenty of precedent for that, too. Chavez wants to be caudillo too much to let this happen, and the National Election Council is controlled by his loyalists...so he wouldn't "let" this happen unless he had a plan ready...

I have no doubt that Chavez´s is not a big fan of democracy, especially if he can be defeated (although we should accept that the possibility of a recall was introduced by him in the constitution, and it´s quite rare in the world). But you seem to overestimate his possiblities to do whatever he wants with this situation. Venezuela is not a Middle East country where three guys can control everything. He´s got a large number of the population movilized against him, all private media too, and strong international pressure to accept the referendum before August 16th. I don´t know what special techniques of intimidation "all of those Cubans he's stuffed his goverment" (?)may have over the opposition, but so far they haven´t worked...

Chavez wouldn't have accepted this if he thought he could lose. I'm waiting for his fraud and intimidation campaign to begin. He isn't caudillo...yet. He's come close before, as the violence he instigated back in 2002 indicated (and THAT sparked the coup attempt - Chavez started the use of force in 1990's internal Venezuelan politics - remember his own coup attempts?). By the way, who's providing the "strong international pressure"? All I've heard is Chavez condemning the U.S., Chavez condemning the OAS, Chavez condemning the Carter Center, etc. And so far Chavez' tactics of intimidation have done their job in delaying the referendum...until just recently. The Cubans are there, YoMartin...usually in the guise of 'guest workers' or something like that. It's funny how many of these 'guests' have ended up in military or paramilitary units...and the U.S. has begun to mention this (not a lot, given other concerns, but here and there).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chavez' opponents failure to get along has not helped them at all...there's quite a range of interests, but no one leader (lucky for them...otherwise I suspect they'd meet with an 'accident'). In an honest election, the opposition would probably oust Chavez...but I have no idea how a new presidential election would go. The Chavistas may count on winning one of those plurality victories that both of us hate, natch? I don't think the Chavistas would win any sort of runoff or STV vote or anything like that...

There´s great international pressure, from the US and, to a lesser extent, other latinamerican countries. The Department of State and some latinamerican ministeries of foreign affairs were building some "contingency" plans in case Chavez did not accept the referendum, and I guess Chavez knew those plans existed and they were one of the reasons why he accepted. You keep repeating Cuba as if that support meant something in the real world. But Cuba means nothing. They can´t give Chavez anything. The referendum will be held, and I don´t expect any decisive fraud in it. OAS and Carter Center would notice it immediately, and it would give the opposition a perfect reason for a coup (well, it wouldn´t be a coup then) and for the US to support them -not publicly, maybe- "in the name of democracy". Chavez would be completely isolated -well, Fidel wouldn´t abandon him... but his presence is not a real asset- and would lose power very quickly. His best chance rests in: either winning the referendum, of trying to win (his party, with a puppet candidate) a general election. And here he has serious chances. I don´t know if he would win a runoff, but I guess he wasn´t so stupid to put that mechanism when he changed the constitution (well, he was stupid enough to put the referendum...).  But, even in that case, if the opposition could unite behind a candidate, what next? They´d have to govern the country, and probably that alliance -from left to right- wouldn´t hold for a minute. And the chavistas are not just going to disappear. So... it´s complicated. I´m afraid with both scenarios now. Chavez winning the referendum would become too strong, probably the authoritarian leader a part of the opposition paints him as (and the opposition would then try a coup, more violence...). And Chavez losing the referendum, who can unite such a polarised situation? It´s complicated. And none of the parts see many incentives to cooperate.

[WMS]

[and more chopping, so we don't get an entire page with only four replies]

Chavez wouldn't have accepted this if he thought he could lose. I'm waiting for his fraud and intimidation campaign to begin. He isn't caudillo...yet. He's come close before, as the violence he instigated back in 2002 indicated (and THAT sparked the coup attempt - Chavez started the use of force in 1990's internal Venezuelan politics - remember his own coup attempts?). By the way, who's providing the "strong international pressure"? All I've heard is Chavez condemning the U.S., Chavez condemning the OAS, Chavez condemning the Carter Center, etc. And so far Chavez' tactics of intimidation have done their job in delaying the referendum...until just recently. The Cubans are there, YoMartin...usually in the guise of 'guest workers' or something like that. It's funny how many of these 'guests' have ended up in military or paramilitary units...and the U.S. has begun to mention this (not a lot, given other concerns, but here and there).

Chavez' opponents failure to get along has not helped them at all...there's quite a range of interests, but no one leader (lucky for them...otherwise I suspect they'd meet with an 'accident'). In an honest election, the opposition would probably oust Chavez...but I have no idea how a new presidential election would go. The Chavistas may count on winning one of those plurality victories that both of us hate, natch? I don't think the Chavistas would win any sort of runoff or STV vote or anything like that...

There´s great international pressure, from the US and, to a lesser extent, other latinamerican countries. The Department of State and some latinamerican ministeries of foreign affairs were building some "contingency" plans in case Chavez did not accept the referendum, and I guess Chavez knew those plans existed and they were one of the reasons why he accepted.

Ah, the only other person who follows this country closely...

Hmm...it would've had to have been an oil embargo or something like that. As much as Chavez likes to posture about cutting oil to the U.S. - which Umengus would like - it's a bluff since he really, really, needs the U.S. to buy Venezuelan oil to keep his government and programs running. The U.S could handle a mutual embargo a lot better than Chavez and Venezuela could.

And I'm not surprised the U.S. is the primary pressurer of Chavez - considering that Chavez has gone out of his way to oppose the U.S. since he was elected, sooner or later the U.S. was going to respond in turn. Chavez falls into the category of 'Third World leader who blames the Americans/West for all his country's problems in order to deflect blame from his own incompetence/corruption/authoritarianism/etc.'. As Schroeder in Germany has shown, you don't need to be in the Third World to use those tactics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wish I shared your optimism...but the Cubans provide military and paramilitary muscle, considering how weak Chavez's purges have made the Venezuelan military. Keep an eye on them...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting analysis. Giving the opposition justification for an American-backed coup might be the one thing that would make Chavez actually agree to the referendum. But notice how hostile Chavez has been to the OAS and Carter Center - that makes me very suspicious. And I have no idea why the referendum is in there - he probably thought it was good public relations and that he never needed to worry about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All true enough. Mostly-democratic chaos or authoritarian semi-stability...wait, actually both options lead to chaos of some type. But that's what Venezuelans get for believing Hugo Chavez...the old government wasn't perfect, but at least it wasn't as repressive! I don't see much hope for stability either way...but see the next paragraph for a consideration of why Chavez will hopefully lose.

Considering Chavez' support of the anti-democratic FARC and ELN in Colombia, he is seriously risking an eventual war with Colombia. Over the past several years, Chavez' aforementioned military purges have weakened the Venezuelan military, while Plan Colombia (Go Uribe!) has strengthened the Colombian military. Add in the outside support from Cuba in the former case and America in the latter case and this could get really nasty. Add in Chavez' meddling in left-wing anti-democratic ethnically-based factions in Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador and there is potential for a spread of proxy wars along the Andes as well. And the anti-American inspired snuggling up to Chavez of Da Silva in Brazil (and to a lesser extent by others such as Argentina?) is not helping matters.

I know the Third World and Europe just love to give America trouble, but you may get more than you bargained for if this cr*p continues... <--- Not personally directed at you, YoMartin, but at a good chunk of the world in general...

[YoMartin]

There´s great international pressure, from the US and, to a lesser extent, other latinamerican countries. The Department of State and some latinamerican ministeries of foreign affairs were building some "contingency" plans in case Chavez did not accept the referendum, and I guess Chavez knew those plans existed and they were one of the reasons why he accepted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, the only other person who follows this country closely...

Hmm...it would've had to have been an oil embargo or something like that. As much as Chavez likes to posture about cutting oil to the U.S. - which Umengus would like - it's a bluff since he really, really, needs the U.S. to buy Venezuelan oil to keep his government and programs running. The U.S could handle a mutual embargo a lot better than Chavez and Venezuela could.

And I'm not surprised the U.S. is the primary pressurer of Chavez - considering that Chavez has gone out of his way to oppose the U.S. since he was elected, sooner or later the U.S. was going to respond in turn. Chavez falls into the category of 'Third World leader who blames the Americans/West for all his country's problems in order to deflect blame from his own incompetence/corruption/authoritarianism/etc.'. As Schroeder in Germany has shown, you don't need to be in the Third World to use those tactics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wish I shared your optimism...but the Cubans provide military and paramilitary muscle, considering how weak Chavez's purges have made the Venezuelan military. Keep an eye on them...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting analysis. Giving the opposition justification for an American-backed coup might be the one thing that would make Chavez actually agree to the referendum. But notice how hostile Chavez has been to the OAS and Carter Center - that makes me very suspicious. And I have no idea why the referendum is in there - he probably thought it was good public relations and that he never needed to worry about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All true enough. Mostly-democratic chaos or authoritarian semi-stability...wait, actually both options lead to chaos of some type. But that's what Venezuelans get for believing Hugo Chavez...the old government wasn't perfect, but at least it wasn't as repressive! I don't see much hope for stability either way...but see the next paragraph for a consideration of why Chavez will hopefully lose.

Considering Chavez' support of the anti-democratic FARC and ELN in Colombia, he is seriously risking an eventual war with Colombia. Over the past several years, Chavez' aforementioned military purges have weakened the Venezuelan military, while Plan Colombia (Go Uribe!) has strengthened the Colombian military. Add in the outside support from Cuba in the former case and America in the latter case and this could get really nasty. Add in Chavez' meddling in left-wing anti-democratic ethnically-based factions in Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador and there is potential for a spread of proxy wars along the Andes as well. And the anti-American inspired snuggling up to Chavez of Da Silva in Brazil (and to a lesser extent by others such as Argentina?) is not helping matters.

I know the Third World and Europe just love to give America trouble, but you may get more than you bargained for if this cr*p continues... <--- Not personally directed at you, YoMartin, but at a good chunk of the world in general...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I cut it a bit...

I understand that you support an oil embargo. But that would only strngthen Chavez. The US attacking him is the best ally Chavez could have. US embassadors need to be very skillful to avoid appearing too much against Chavez. That´s what they did in Bolivia: the US embassador said "Hey, if you vote for Evo we won´t be happy", and Evo immediately jumped from 7-8% to 25%... No country likes to receive orders from outside, especially if those orders come from the US. BTW, I consider Bolivia the greatest problem in the region for the next years, much more than Venezuela. There´s an ethnic conflict there, besides the economy. But, back to our topic...

Chavez has spoken against the US more than anybody else in the world. He´s met with Saddam, Khadaffi, Fidel... He repeatedly calls Bush a "pendejo" -don´t know the translation, but it´s not nice, I can tell you that... At first I thought it was a way to gain popularity, nut now I think it´s an irrational obsesion...

Why he put the referendum (it will be the 15th finally, before the key 19th deadline) in the constitution... Good question. I guess his "mesias" rebuilt of venezuelan democracy after the corruption of the "partidocracia" lead him to include articles like this in the constitution (there´s another one that even allows for civil desobedience if you consider that the government is being tyrannical; I don´t know how many constitutions allow you explicitely not to obbey it...). Of course, I guess he never thought it could backlash...

I think you overestimate the possibilities for chaos in the area. I don´t see any possible conflict with Colombia -and I don´t think he is really supporting the FARC, as they accuse him of; he wouldn´t be so stupid... About Brazil and Argentina, I have no doubt at all they would immediately turn against Chavez in case of massive fraud. They may sometimes attack the US in rethoric, but they now perfectly well where their convenience lies in cases like this. Especially when one needs help to solve his default and the other is triyng to avoid it...

Non taken. I agree that the constant attack to the US to hide own errors is extremely childish. But it´s also true to me that there are many reasons to disagree with the US, especially with the way it has often operated in Latin America.

[WMS]

{chop chop chop}

I cut it a bit...

I understand that you support an oil embargo. But that would only strngthen Chavez. The US attacking him is the best ally Chavez could have. US embassadors need to be very skillful to avoid appearing too much against Chavez. That´s what they did in Bolivia: the US embassador said "Hey, if you vote for Evo we won´t be happy", and Evo immediately jumped from 7-8% to 25%... No country likes to receive orders from outside, especially if those orders come from the US. BTW, I consider Bolivia the greatest problem in the region for the next years, much more than Venezuela. There´s an ethnic conflict there, besides the economy. But, back to our topic...

Actually, I'm not sure an oil embargo is a good idea; I just think that America might have used it as a threat. Ah, yes, one of the Third World Corollaries: No matter how utterly horrendous the actions of a Third World government, the second the U.S. criticizes it the government gets more popular. And Bolivia was rather poorly handled...yes, I'm aware of the ethnic Native vs. err, what's the name for pure-blood Spanish (?) conflict, and that's part of the whole Andes mess. But that is a side issue...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm glad I have my international analysis website - it keeps me informed of things like this. Yep, they had the "pendejo" comments there as well. No direct translation provided, but it is basically a pretty harsh curse word, isn't it? I've heard it used here in New Mexico too. And I don't know why Chavez goes on about this - he started this when Clinton was President - since U.S. policy was, until about 2001-2002, to just ignore Chavez. If he thinks the U.S. has been actively been trying to overthrow him, he's mistaken...it would be much worse in Venezuela if we were. We kinda passively supported the attempted coup, but we hardly staged it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ironic, eh? And his government has also turned corrupt as well...sometimes things just won't go well, no matter what.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'm not a sunny optimist in general. But I firmly believe Chavez is backing FARC and ELN - he's basically turned over Venezuelan border areas over to them, and there's been a LOT of evidence of FARC and ELN units fleeing into Venezuela to avoid Colombian military or AUC offensives (which has upset local Venezuelan landowners who have quietly organized their own units with AUC assistance - but that's another side note). I still foresee future trouble, although proxy war is more likely than general war, especially if Venezuela descends into a civil war of its own. Good to see that Brazil and Argentina haven't entirely turned against America yet...although I think Brazil will do so, sooner or later, as it makes its own bid to dominate Latin America (Mercosur's snuggling with the EU is partly motivated by that).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Feel free to disagree with U.S. policy...mind you, I don't think Bush is paying enough attention to Latin America to even have an organized policy at the moment for you to object to. America always has reasons for what it does, even if they may be ones y'all disagree with, but that's geopolitics for you...nothing new under the sun. And nationalism and ideology on all sides can blind one to why things are happening the way they are...

[WMS]

The referendum will be held, and I don´t expect any decisive fraud in it. OAS and Carter Center would notice it immediately, and it would give the opposition a perfect reason for a coup (well, it wouldn´t be a coup then) and for the US to support them -not publicly, maybe- "in the name of democracy". Chavez would be completely isolated -well, Fidel wouldn´t abandon him... but his presence is not a real asset- and would lose power very quickly. His best chance rests in: either winning the referendum, of trying to win (his party, with a puppet candidate) a general election. And here he has serious chances. I don´t know if he would win a runoff, but I guess he wasn´t so stupid to put that mechanism when he changed the constitution (well, he was stupid enough to put the referendum...).

Interesting analysis. Giving the opposition justification for an American-backed coup might be the one thing that would make Chavez actually agree to the referendum. But notice how hostile Chavez has been to the OAS and Carter Center - that makes me very suspicious. And I have no idea why the referendum is in there - he probably thought it was good public relations and that he never needed to worry about it.

And now I give you, from Reuters, the beginning of the subversion of the referendum:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5397102

Chavez Recall Promoter Investigated for Conspiracy
Thu Jun 10, 2004 06:42 PM ET

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5386226

Venezuela May Curb Observers' Role in Referendum
Wed Jun 9, 2004 04:59 PM ET

I knew it! Just you wait, YoMartin...you'll see how badly this goes...

[The Duke]

Uh, excuse me, but getting signatures on a petition is harder than getting votes in an election.  See the CA-Recall.  More votes came in to recall Davis than there were signatures on the petition.

[YoMartin]

The referendum will be held, and I don´t expect any decisive fraud in it. OAS and Carter Center would notice it immediately, and it would give the opposition a perfect reason for a coup (well, it wouldn´t be a coup then) and for the US to support them -not publicly, maybe- "in the name of democracy". Chavez would be completely isolated -well, Fidel wouldn´t abandon him... but his presence is not a real asset- and would lose power very quickly. His best chance rests in: either winning the referendum, of trying to win (his party, with a puppet candidate) a general election. And here he has serious chances. I don´t know if he would win a runoff, but I guess he wasn´t so stupid to put that mechanism when he changed the constitution (well, he was stupid enough to put the referendum...).

Interesting analysis. Giving the opposition justification for an American-backed coup might be the one thing that would make Chavez actually agree to the referendum. But notice how hostile Chavez has been to the OAS and Carter Center - that makes me very suspicious. And I have no idea why the referendum is in there - he probably thought it was good public relations and that he never needed to worry about it.

And now I give you, from Reuters, the beginning of the subversion of the referendum:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5397102

Chavez Recall Promoter Investigated for Conspiracy
Thu Jun 10, 2004 06:42 PM ET

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5386226

Venezuela May Curb Observers' Role in Referendum
Wed Jun 9, 2004 04:59 PM ET

I knew it! Just you wait, YoMartin...you'll see how badly this goes...

Chavists may try to make things harder for the opposition, but I´m pretty sure there will be a referendum and that foreign observers will be there. And if Chavez doesn´t allow that, he will be removed by other means...

And, Gov Ford, I know it´s more work to sign than to vote (and also because the last one is secret). But in this context it seems to me that all real opponents of Chavez did sign; maybe the can expect to grow from the undecided, or from those who oppose Chavez but don´t care much. Still, it won´t be easy...

[WMS]

I've been away from Internet access, YoMartin, but I promise I'll get a reply to you this week, OK? -WMS

[YoMartin]

I've been away from Internet access, YoMartin, but I promise I'll get a reply to you this week, OK? -WMS

Actually, I don´t really what´s been going these days in Venezuela. It´s been unusually quiet, I guess.

[WMS]

I've been away from Internet access, YoMartin, but I promise I'll get a reply to you this week, OK? -WMS

Actually, I don´t really what´s been going these days in Venezuela. It´s been unusually quiet, I guess.

Ominously so. Here's some partial quotes from my Stratfor source (full quotes are forbidden per their copyright):
Military events...
"Separately, Stratfor sources inside the Venezuelan army reported June 25 that Baduel is restructuring battalion and artillery group commands in the army to make sure that all units in Caracas and near other major cities like Maracaibo and Valencia are firmly in the command of pro-Chavez officers. One source, who attended a recent meeting of officers chaired by Baduel, said the army commander openly discussed transferring officers whose loyalty was suspect to border outposts hundreds of miles from Caracas.

The army sources also said the FAN has purchased substantial quantities of rocket-propelled grenades and other light weapons for infantry units in recent months. The sources said the acquisitions were made to arm the reserve militia units that Chavez has created, and which are supposed to number close to 100,000 members -- more than the entire FAN."

And attempted manipulation of the Venezuelan Supreme Court: "The new law expands Venezuela's highest court from 20 to 32 justices, and would empower the National Assembly and attorney-general to dismiss and appoint judges at will. Since Chavez controls the assembly, this means his followers could pack the Supreme Court and the country's judicial system in general with judges loyal to Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution. Opposition groups believe Chavez could use the new Supreme Court law to make sure he wins the referendum if the results are closely contested, or if he loses to ensure he can seek re-election in new general elections after he resigns."

...aaaaaand...."Noriega [the U.S. official, not anyone from Panama ] in particular likely will be singled out for more attacks in coming days by Venezuelan officials, given that he told congressional leaders the Chavez government's diplomatic corps throughout Latin America "maintains pretty robust contacts" with leftist groups that support a continental Bolivarian revolution. The pillars of that Bolivarian movement reject closer economic and political ties with the United States, which is perceived by Bolivarian groups as an imperialist threat to Latin American sovereignty."

But I guess we'll see, won't we...

[YoMartin]

I honestly think nothing like that will happen. And if it happens, Chavez will be completely isolated and loose power rather quickly.

[WMS]

I honestly think nothing like that will happen. And if it happens, Chavez will be completely isolated and loose power rather quickly.

Well, isolation hasn't worked on Fidel Castro, in part because so much of the world loves to show how anti-American it is by fawning over his regime...I worry that we're witnessing the rise of another Cuba.

[YoMartin]

I honestly think nothing like that will happen. And if it happens, Chavez will be completely isolated and loose power rather quickly.

Well, isolation hasn't worked on Fidel Castro, in part because so much of the world loves to show how anti-American it is by fawning over his regime...I worry that we're witnessing the rise of another Cuba.

But this one comes 40 years late... I don´t think it´s a likely scenario.