VENEZUELA referendum

bobbyjoe

What do ye think of Chavez's chances in the Venezualan referendum.

He thinks that the US oil companies should pay more than 16% royalty for the oil, this has made him some big time enemies.

Interesting article
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=358&row=0

Is the US more interested in having the government it wants, or what the people want?

Beruthiel

bobbyjoe wrote:

Is the US more interested in having the government it wants, or what the people want?

do you even have to ask that question?! of course the US is more interested in what's best for them

chewy

well a similar referendum in boliva to ask who should get the benefits of the oil ddin't go very well and it was fuged towards the benefit of the multinational oil companies but i think chavez will win

Hobbes

chewy wrote:

well a similar referendum in boliva to ask who should get the benefits of the oil ddin't go very well and it was fuged towards the benefit of the multinational oil companies but i think chavez will win

Assuming that there is no behind the scenes intervention, then I'd say Chavez will win.

sovtek

Let's see...Chavez gets elected and then overthrown in a coupe. The US immediately praises the members of the coupe...and then backtracks when Chavez is put back in power to the delight of the majority of Venezualans.
That ignores possible CIA involvement in the coupe as alleged by Chavez.
Given this I think it's safe to say the US is only interested in it's narrow economic interests.

ReefBreak

Beruthiel wrote:

of course the US is more interested in what's best for them

sovtek wrote:

Given this I think it's safe to say the US is only interested in it's narrow economic interests.

Without actually getting into the debate in question, I find this sentiment to be quite obvious. Every government of every country in the world is more interested in what's best for them - including Ireland. That being said, the US obviously has a lot more muscle to influence others, and that's the case here.

Zombrex

ReefBreak wrote:

Without actually getting into the debate in question, I find this sentiment to be quite obvious. Every government of every country in the world is more interested in what's best for them - including Ireland. That being said, the US obviously has a lot more muscle to influence others, and that's the case here.

Not every country in the world talks about bring democracy and stability to other countries and then uses their muscle to over throw (or attempt to over throw) democratically elected goverments that threaten US business interests. Not every country in the world has the CIA.

There is a difference between doing what is best for your country and doing what is best for your country while screwing over everyones else.

shotamoose

The reports I've read have suggested that Chavez is likely to win. I don't think that'll be the end of it though. Stories circulating in the Latin American press seem to be suggesting that the CIA are pondering their 'reaction', based on the ever-so-slightly alarmist theory that Chavez intends to kick off a wave of socialist revolution across the continent.

Lennoxschips

With "socialist revolution" probably meaning decent health care, good schools and enforcement of taxation laws.

Stop the commie bastard!

DadaKopf

Chavez' "socialist revolution" actually involves what seems to be genuinely pro-poor economic and social policies and improved administrative efficiency more-or-less in line with World Bank recommendations. So much so that the World Bank has begun disbursing money to his government again.

Admittedly, in the recent past, Chavez has taken strong stances on liberalization of the oil sector and on royalties, but with the exception of the US and the Western oil companies, most analysts agree that Chavez has done very well to channel that money into a macroeconomic stabilization fund. By playing his economic cards right, Chavez' new finance minister has averted crisis after crisis - crises that were caused by the old government's collaboration with the IMF.

The most, perhaps, distasteful aspect of Chavismo is the strong role the military plays in the various social projects underway. However, if this election goes in Chavez' favour, it'll mean he and his supporters have things all sown up in Venezuela. It's just possible it may signal a new phase of stability in the country which should attract some more inward investment needed to boost the economy - something which his government is attempting, albeit on the basis of the national goal of poverty reduction and equality.

It's important to look at all this in the general context of the region. Latin America is going through a phase of 'democratic consolidation' - although their forms of democracy are usually hidden oligarchies. It'll be interesting to see where Chavismo goes.

But, with the US-backed coup by the Colombians a few months ago, the next coup attempt may only be months away.

chewy

does anybody know much abou this lula guy in brazil i think... he got elected on the basis of promising all these reforms... but has changed now and is policies have moved the right (i think?)...

its like mandela , a saviour/figurehead for their country but hes sold out to privitation left righ and centre?

shotamoose

chewy wrote:

does anybody know much abou this lula guy in brazil i think... he got elected on the basis of promising all these reforms... but has changed now and is policies have moved the right (i think?)...

It doesn't help that the IMF have him by the 'nads. Bearing that in mind, I think he's done a pretty good job.

Flukey

Most of South America at any one time have bad economies. Some of that is down to, what we might call, outside interventions of the type have been discussed in this thread.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

What's Iraq got to do with Venezuela apart from its place in America's National Energy Strategy?

US involvement in Latin America, and Venezuela specifically, is long-documented. Any Google search will throw up thousands of links. Any academic journal database will throw up dozens, hundreds.

US justifications for involvement in Latin America is a long story but more or less breaks down into: laying claim to Latin america to check the British and German empires and navies; anti-communism; anti-narcoterrorism; and, now, 'democratization'.

There is more than enough evidence to prove the National Endowment for Democracy's hand (a CIA front organization) in funding the anti-Chavez opposition groups. There is ample evidence to reveal the close connections between the former Venezuela military high command and the US military via the Southern Command and other channels.

Even a superficial reading of the Venezuelan political economic and social landscape will reveal how the elite, emerging middle-classes, the military collaborate among themselves and foreign actors to maintain power and, especially, how Venezuela's oil attracts foreign interests, particularly US interests - ever since the issuing of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 and the discovery of oil in the early twentieth century, actually.

Hmm, just like Saudi Arabia.

Lennoxschips

daveirl, the CIA has been involved in every coup in Latin America - this has been well documented. After Chavez was overthrown by a military coup, the White House almost immediately announced it as a victory for democracy. Anyone who thinks the CIA is not involved in Venezuela has their head in the clouds. But of course, there is no hard evidence, because the CIA is a secretive organisation and make a habit of covering their tracks. So we have to wait twenty to thirty years before retired CIA agents start publishing their memoirs before Chavez is vindicated.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

daveirl, the CIA has been involved in every coup in Latin America - this has been well documented.

Would that include the coup that Chavez himself attempted in 1992?

DadaKopf

Of course not! The Bolívarian Revolution was a middle-level officers' coup! And what a failure it was.

Yes, indeed, Lennox, it's not good to be so glibly general about these things .

Lennoxschips

Well yes, the CIA was involved in that one too, because they helped put it down.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

Well yes, the CIA was involved in that one too, because they helped put it down.

Except that they weren't and you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Lennoxschips

Fantastic, we've reverted to name calling.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

Fantastic, we've reverted to name calling.

What do you expect? You come out with a completely unsubstantiated presumption that is not supported by any even vaguely credible sources (or perhaps even any at all) and you want to be taken seriously? The only thing I’m unsure of is whether you came out with it because you actually believe it or because you just thought you’d chance your arm and bluff.

Lennoxschips

It's a well known fact that the CIA and the US government has always backed the Venezuelan political elite who were in power in 1992, both financially and politically. They often proclaimed their "unique" and "friendly" relationship with each other, with oil flowing freely to the US. If you want to believe that the Venezuelan government received no political or financial support from the US in putting down the Chavez military coup, then I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I would personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all, as you claim, especially when one considers that Bush I was in the White House.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

It's a well known fact that the CIA and the US government has always backed the Venezuelan political elite who were in power in 1992, both financially and politically.

Well known? Why don’t you supply some credible sources then to back up your claim that it was a regime propped up by the US?

That there was no antipathy between or even that relationships were friendly hardly proves anything - or does a nation need to be embargoed before you would consider it free from Yankee domination?

Otherwise ‘well known’ is just another way of you saying ‘because I said so’.

They often proclaimed their "unique" and "friendly" relationship with each other, with oil flowing freely to the US.

Yes. That’s called trade. Heard of it?

If you want to believe that the Venezuelan government received no political or financial support from the US in putting down the Chavez military coup, then I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I would personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all, as you claim, especially when one considers that Bush I was in the White House.

Disagree all you want, but you’ve presented nothing other than this disagreement as your evidence. In essence a suspicion or paranoia based your being ‘shocked’ if it was otherwise and nothing else. Sure we believe you :rolleyes:

I know bullshìt when I smell it, and boy, you’re shovelling plenty here.

DadaKopf

Lennoxschips wrote:

It's a well known fact that the CIA and the US government has always backed the Venezuelan political elite who were in power in 1992, both financially and politically. They often proclaimed their "unique" and "friendly" relationship with each other, with oil flowing freely to the US. If you want to believe that the Venezuelan government received no political or financial support from the US in putting down the Chavez military coup, then I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I would personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all, as you claim, especially when one considers that Bush I was in the White House.

Lennox, like I said, that coup was a middle-level officers' coup. It's important to look at the composition of the Venezuelan military if you want to explain what happened and your statement there is too simplistic.

The Venezuelan military is characterised by a high degree of class and racial fluidity, it's an institution based more on merit and ability than patronage, populism or corruption. What you had in the Venezuelan military before the 'Revolution' was a division between the top brass and everyone else, a military high command closely associated with the country's economic elite, mostly white, and the rest of the army, very much populated by the black and indigenous Venezuelans with hardly any - if any - connections to the elite. They felt closer to their own sort - the bottom to middle ranks who came from squalor.

Repeating a situation that occurred in Argentina in the 1980s and early 1990s, the middle-level officers, including Chavez, attempted to overthrow the military high-command by cutting off the chain of command's head and holding the government to ransom. It may have worked if he had waited another year, by which time all the military would have been behind the movement.

Since the 1980s, in Argentina and Venezuela, the lower ranks had become increasingly discontented with the high command who were felt to have distanced themselves from their constituency; they were having the life of Reilly propping up the regime while the military budget, and soldiers' incomes were declining as a result of neoliberal IMF adjustment policies. Again echoing Argentina, the military revolt was motivated by (1) declining incomes of soldiers of middle to lower ranks, (2) a feeling by the military that the institution was falling into disrepute, (3) and, as they saw it, they were the country's most efficient and disciplined organization, it was their responsibility to safeguard the country's (and their) interests by ousting the Pérez government whose ineptitude had landed the country in grave economic crisis.

It bears repeating time and again that the military is not, and hardly ever was, simply an armed wing of the economic elite. It's an institution that has its own politics and its own interests, which change depending on circumstance. And circumstances have been changing. It's one thing to say the parties in government received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, it's completely different to say the army is just an armed wing of the economic elite who run those parties, the trade unions, the media.

DadaKopf

Yes. That’s called trade. Heard of it?

It's not exactly trade and you know it. Any economic analysis will tell you first off that Venezuela is an economy dependent on the US, not just for oil but for other commodity and intermediate manufacture exports. By that token, the US is somewhat dependent on Venezuela because a large proportion of its oil imports (currently at around 50%) come from Venezuela. Moreover, as the 5th largest oil exporter in the world, Venezuela can affect world prices.

But it's not exactly trade because, despite statements by various US politicians, organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (the CIA) have frequently interfered in the country's sovereignty to affect the outcomes of elections. Other interventions have ranged from military training and arms sales to giving money to PDVSA (State-run oil company) trade union organizers (allied to the elites) to continue the 2002 employee lock-out in an attempt to destabilize Chavez' government. All this because Chavez was looking for double-royalties from ExxonMobil and those lads so he could raise funds for his various social 'missions' to reduce poverty.

Personally, I wouldn't call that trade.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

It's not exactly trade and you know it. Any economic analysis will tell you first off that Venezuela is an economy dependent on the US, not just for oil but for other commodity and intermediate manufacture exports. By that token, the US is somewhat dependent on Venezuela because a large proportion of its oil imports (currently at around 50%) come from Venezuela. Moreover, as the 5th largest oil exporter in the world, Venezuela can affect world prices.

That is trade, the strength of the trading bonds and intertwined dependencies may lend greater significance to the relationship, but that does not mean that one should not get carried away with conspiracy theories either.

organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (the CIA) have frequently interfered in the country's sovereignty to affect the outcomes of elections.

Indeed, but we’re specifically discussing the 1992 coup.

Personally, I wouldn't call that trade.

More personal opinions, I see...

DadaKopf

So trade isn't just the exchange of goods and services in a market but the interference by one sovereign country in another's internal political affairs and its state institutions for the purposes of affecting that country's internal affairs?

Indeed, but we’re specifically discussing the 1992 coup.

I was expanding the point to infer that US intervention in the region reveals a pattern. I already dealt with funding vis-a-vis the 1992 coup attempt.

So there's still the problem of your dubious understanding of the term 'trade'.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

So trade isn't just the exchange of goods and services in a market but the interference by one sovereign country in another's internal political affairs and its state institutions for the purposes of affecting that country's internal affairs?

Errr… no, trade is simply the exchange of goods and services between two countries and the rules that govern such exchanges (i.e. quotas, tariffs, etc.).

I was expanding the point to infer that US intervention in the region reveals a pattern. I already dealt with funding vis-a-vis the 1992 coup attempt (an article by Deborah Norden called 'The Rise of the Lieutenant Colonels: Rebellion in Argentina and Venezuela’ in Latin American Perspectives explains it all.

If there is a pattern of regional interference by the US, then that is also immaterial, or at best circumstantial, as I was specifically citing the 1992 coup. As for your ‘covering’ that, I don’t dispute that you did, but I never addressed you in the first place on the topic.

So there's still the problem of your dubious understanding of the term 'trade'.

No, the problem is with your attempt to ascribe a political definition to what is an economic term - another political science student with a one-track paradigm.

Lennoxschips

I am good friends with a Venezuelan who has moved to Europe, and he says it's common knowledge in Venezuela that the political elite end the wealthy classes which permitted the advantageous "trade" agreements are in bed with Washington DC. As Dadakopf said, US meddling in Venezuela has been going on for decades.

So I would find it very surprising that the US government and the CIA would have just stood by and let Chavez rise to power on the back of a military coup in 1992, when he threatened their cozy "trade" relations with Venezuela. The precedent is there, the US has never relented interfering in Latin America when a less then friendly government gets a sniff in power and it wasn't any different in 1992.

DadaKopf

No, the problem is with your attempt to ascribe a political definition to what is an economic term - another political science student with a one-track paradigm.

No, sir. I'd be of the political economy school. And that's not just a school for lefties. It's everyone other than neoliberals and dinosaurs.