Is Chavez becoming a liability?

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

I mean seriously; they're discussing shutting down CNN's operation on the basis that they linked him to al-Qaeda!

theyre not suggesting shutting down CNN especially as it in america and they can't, they are sueing CNN, CNN acted the same way as RCTV did during the coup, it very clear what CNN's position is on Venezuala.

I was looking for thread on this, I think FYI etc have explained this brilliantly I read similar things that chavez is removing the licence for RCTV to be transmistted over public/terrestial tv but has not stopped it transmitting over payperview/satillite etc, I heard they removed equipment which sounds bad but i presume it just public transmitters. I think chavez is this case in more then justified, a you'll here plenty of stuff from international organisation such as Reporters without Borders, but they are only interested in independence from government they've veryylittle to say on monopolistic private companies who represent the rich white elite as RCTV does in Venezuala.

so to recap he's not shutting down RCTV he revoquing the public liscense of a private TV station that was part of organised coup against democraticaly elected leader.

Memnoch

lostexpectation wrote:

so to recap he's not shutting down RCTV he revoquing the public liscense of a private TV station that was part of organised coup against democraticaly elected leader.

What I don't get is why none of the obviously biased 'liberal,' media have reported this to be the case.

FYI

Memnoch wrote:

What I don't get is why none of the obviously biased 'liberal,' media have reported this to be the case.

They have, to a certain extent. But the 'liberal' media work in a very confined set of frames - Chavez is 'populist', therefore bad - the US dislikes Chavez, therefore he must be bad - 'business' dislikes Chavez, therefore he must be bad. When you begin an article or an editorial line within these restrictive frames you introduce a certain unavoidable bias, that's why the Irish Times piece above reads completely different from end to beginning, i.e. the introduction does not bare out in the content.

Here is the fairest account of the situation I have seen in the 'liberal' media, published today in the Irish Times:



Chávez in context

News that President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has refused to renew the licence of an opposition television station has been taken up internationally as confirming the authoritarian turn in his regime. It is indeed a worrying trend, taken together with restrictions on the courts and pending changes to the constitution.

But these events must be seen in the context of Venezuela's deep political divisions and the opposition's utter failure to come to terms with Mr Chávez's repeated electoral success and popular legitimacy.

The RCTV station in fact led and provoked the violent coup attempt against Mr Chávez in 2002. Since then it has not ceased its outright opposition to him and has never retracted its support for that violence. Its political line draws on hard right-wing neoconservatism, inspired by the Fox news channel in the United States.

It shares much of this ideology with most other sections of the Venezuelan media, based on vested interests of powerful sectors opposed to Mr Chávez's social reforms. The station has not been banned and is free to continue its cable and satellite channels. Most Venezuelans polled say they oppose the measure because RCTV runs several favourite soap operas.

It is more surprising that it has taken so long to make this decision than that it has been executed. Nor is it surprising that Mr Chávez should seek to even up the media balance by introducing a public service station in its place. It is less convincing to say this is state-controlled - many others are in democratic states - than that its introduction lacked due process and open competition.

The political methods increasingly resorted to by Mr Chávez include decrees and direct action rather than legislation. The legal and constitutional changes already made and in prospect all tend to eliminate checks and balances on governmental power. The assumed logic is towards a personalised autocracy and away from democratic politics.

Such a Madisonian criticism of Mr Chávez's populist radicalism is disingenuous - and premature. It disregards the systematic irresponsibility of Venezuela's opposition parties and the social interests they represent. Many of these conventional safeguards have in fact functioned to protect such interests. The opposition refuses to stand for parliament and remains unreconciled to Mr Chávez's repeated electoral mandate, based on a radical programme of change to address inequality by using the country's oil wealth. This should be properly recognised by those making considered criticisms of his political methods.

© 2007 The Irish Times

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2007/0530/1180471720603.html

Sand

Here is the fairest account of the situation I have seen in the 'liberal' media, published today in the Irish Times:

Actually its one of the stupidest things Ive ever seen presented as an Irish Times editorial - they tend to write relatively common sense views and then go drop some complete insanity into the middle just to liven things up. I still remember that they linked the Virginia Tech shootings to the Iraq War....

As to why its completely stupid, to sum up their argument its just "Chavez can rule by decree, gut the state insitutions, centralise power, arm his supporters and target political enemies because...well... *we* [The Irish Times, leftists in general] think the opposition arent nice people." Basically, civil liberties and the basic constitutional rights that underpin a successful democracy can be ignored if the Irish Times thinks its okay - the level of arrogance is fairly staggering. In fact, it actually sneers at "Madisonian criticism".

Clearly, Bertie should take a leaf out of Chavez's book when it comes to dealing with the opposition media that targeted him - after all, theyre probably a shower of politically motivated bastards too. I reccomend starting with the Irish Times, just to hear the squeals as the Irish Times rediscovers a sudden appreciation for Madisonian principles.

Chavez might claim RCTV didnt support him during the coup but lets face it unlike Chavez, RCTV didnt carry out a coup. Oh but wait, I forgot - because the Irish Times and leftists in general like Chavez the coup was okay. It only became bad when someone did it to Chavez....

FYI

Sand wrote:

Chavez might claim RCTV didnt support him during the coup but lets face it unlike Chavez, RCTV didnt carry out a coup. Oh but wait, I forgot - because the Irish Times and leftists in general like Chavez the coup was okay. It only became bad when someone did it to Chavez....

The difference is Sand, the coup against Chavez was entirely +unpopular+ with the Venezuelan people - they are the ones that matter!

RCTV's 'crime' was not that they didn't support Chavez, he couldn't argue on that basis, it was that they actively supported the unpopular coup.

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

Chavez might claim RCTV didnt support him during the coup but lets face it unlike Chavez, RCTV didnt carry out a coup. Oh but wait, I forgot - because the Irish Times and leftists in general like Chavez the coup was okay. It only became bad when someone did it to Chavez....

Its not that they didn't support him. RCTV was involved in the coup. Helped it, then got the coup leaders on tv to thank them. This station wouldn't last five minutes in any country.

Dirk Gently

Sand wrote:

Chavez might claim RCTV didnt support him during the coup

In your opinion is this the reason he didn't renew the public licence, or is that remark deliberately misleading?

karen3212

The Corinthian wrote:

You're really not bothering to read what I've written. For the third time, Chavez is not a dictator, however this is the direction he is going in. Even if one concedes that RCTV was rotten to the core and had to be shut down, it does not explain why he's expanded his purge of the airways and is in the process of shutting down other stations with increasingly dubious excuses. I mean seriously; they're discussing shutting down CNN's operation on the basis that they linked him to al-Qaeda!

Look at the thread title - the key word is 'becoming'. No one here is saying that he is a dictator, but that he is becoming one. What people are saying is that his increasingly authoritarian actions are bringing him towards that position and the present campaign to limit the ability for non-government media to get their message across is a sign of that.

And being elected does not give him an unlimited mandate, neither does it make him a natural democrat - remember many dictators were originally elected too - especially in light of his own attempt at a coup in the nineties.

Actually I've linked to all my sources, none of which are fringe pressure groups like yours. You even posted one source that was anonymous.

And, TBH, you hold a very deluded one born of having been sucked into the cult of personality that surrounds Chavez. All his actions in your eyes can be justified, no matter how dubious or anti-democratic they may be. There's a word for that, you know.

Seeing as you believe he is becoming a dictator, would you support the US if it wanted to make a pre-emptive strike?

Do you think they should get involved there too, it appears that they are building up the fear and hatred in the US, would you support a strike on Venezuela, or a secret CIA orchestrated overthrow there?

In my opinion the US is desperately worried that Latin America may actually unite, and do things their own way, without the World bank or the IMF.

The Corinthian

karen3212 wrote:

Seeing as you believe he is becoming a dictator, would you support the US if it wanted to make a pre-emptive strike?

Do you think they should get involved there too, it appears that they are building up the fear and hatred in the US, would you support a strike on Venezuela, or a secret CIA orchestrated overthrow there?

No and no. You seem kinda stuck in that whole with us or against us mindset.Why do some people assume that just because you are critical of an anti-US regime or individual, you must be pro-US?

Rock Climber

General instruction for this thread
Please keep disagreements friendly thank you.

rickybutcher

The Corinthian wrote:

No and no. You seem kinda stuck in that whole with us or against us mindset.Why do some people assume that just because you are critical of an anti-US regime or individual, you must be pro-US?

Slightly off-topic here, but the question was asked by Corinthian and I think he can answer it himself for us. A few genuine questions that would answer that:

1 - Did you support the Iraq war?
2 - Would you support a coup against Chavez and did you support the last one?
3 - Are you a stronger critic of the tactic of mass-detention in Iraq, Palestine, Guantanamo Bay torture & CIA kidnapping/torture policy (extraordinary rendition) than you are of Hugo Chavez?

1 word or 1 sentence answers are fine by me. And we can leave it at that.

karen3212

The Corinthian wrote:

No and no. You seem kinda stuck in that whole with us or against us mindset.Why do some people assume that just because you are critical of an anti-US regime or individual, you must be pro-US?

In fairness you have a point there,

it was bush though that said ''you are with us, or you are with the terrorists''

A frightening choice.

Didn't you know that they actually have people over there thinking Chavez is going to attack them? People believe he is a threat to their national security! Therefore the next step is, um.....um.....pre-emptive strike, or black ops, or antagonise him and have him start it.

nacho libre

karen3212 wrote:

In fairness you have a point there,

He does but in his case if i recall correctly he made excuses for unsavoury regimes America has supported in the past. His opprobrium or "concerns" at the subverting of democracy in Venezuela or any country is seemingly dependent on whether the regime is left-wing or right-wing and more importantly pro-American.

The Corinthian

rickybutcher wrote:

1 - Did you support the Iraq war?

No. Always thought it was the dumbest idea ever.

2 - Would you support a coup against Chavez and did you support the last one?

I don't think there is justification for a coup at present. There may be in the future, but certainly not at present. And no on the the previous one. For bonus points, I didn't support Chavez's own failed coup attempt either - did you?

3 - Are you a stronger critic of the tactic of mass-detention in Iraq, Palestine, Guantanamo Bay torture & CIA kidnapping/torture policy (extraordinary rendition) than you are of Hugo Chavez?

I've never really compared them, tbh. I think I'm probably a bigger critic of Chavez though because there are more lemmings willing to run to his defense as opposed to any moral reason.

1 word or 1 sentence answers are fine by me. And we can leave it at that.

Happy? Or are you upset I don't conform to the polar view of politics?

The Corinthian

nacho libre wrote:

He does but in his case if i recall correctly he made excuses for unsavoury regimes America has supported in the past. His opprobrium or "concerns" at the subverting of democracy in Venezuela or any country is seemingly dependent on whether the regime is left-wing or right-wing and more importantly pro-American.

Actually I didn't. What I have done is point out that there are plenty of people foaming at the mouth to to damn one dictator and make excuses for another, not because they're dictators but because they happen to agree with the ideology of the poster.

karen3212

The Corinthian wrote:

I don't think there is justification for a coup at present. There may be in the future, but certainly not at present. And no on the the previous one. For bonus points, I didn't support Chavez's own failed coup attempt either - did you?

Right so you think there may be a need for a coup in the future............so you'd support one then?

But...you don't support coups in general?

Contradiction, no?

karen3212

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually I didn't. What I have done is point out that there are plenty of people foaming at the mouth to to damn one dictator and make excuses for another, not because they're dictators but because they happen to agree with the ideology of the poster.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what is meant here.

Which dictators please?

The Corinthian

karen3212 wrote:

Right so you think there may be a need for a coup in the future............so you'd support one then?

But...you don't support coups in general?

Contradiction, no?

Not really. As I've already said Chavez is not a dictator. If the opposition got their act together they could democratically get rid of him. Of course if he does become a dictator then there are no democratic avenues left and a coup is really all you're left with.

karen3212 wrote:

Which dictators please?

It's off topic, but it regards a thread on Pinochet at the time of his death. Many were happy to dance on his grave, but when asked about Castro or the atrocities committed by the Sandinista regime, bent over backwards to defend them.

rickybutcher

The Corinthian wrote:

Happy? Or are you upset I don't conform to the polar view of politics?

I don't have a polar view of politics. I just think other people do

The Corinthian

rickybutcher wrote:

I don't have a polar view of politics. I just think other people do

Good to hear. So did you support Chavez's own coup attempt?

bobbyjoe

Regarding the 1992 coup attempt by Chavez. If the Irish Gov ordered the army onto the streets to shoot civilians I'd hope some of them would refuse and attempt a coup to.

The Corinthian

Oh, I see, you supported his coup attempt. I see...

Four legs good, two legs bad, 'n all that jazz, I suppose.

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

I've never really compared them, tbh. I think I'm probably a bigger critic of Chavez though because there are more lemmings willing to run to his defense as opposed to any moral reason.

Happy? Or are you upset I don't conform to the polar view of politics?

you'll actually find that defending this actionis the unpopular view, people have to read beyond the wire services and the western minded journalism ngos.

so you don't actually believe that RCTV didn't help organise the 2002 coup against him.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

Oh, I see, you supported his coup attempt. I see...

Four legs good, two legs bad, 'n all that jazz, I suppose.

To right not all coups are bad.
Whats your problem with it?

rickybutcher

The Corinthian wrote:

Good to hear. So did you support Chavez's own coup attempt?

It's not the ideal solution by any means, building a popular movement is the way to go and Chavez did that in the years following his coup attempt, but had it resulted in the dismantling of the corrupt state and the organised crime families who ran it and the building up of one which didn't just benefit a rich elite I would have, yes. Provided also democratic reforms were made (you can't argue that the mechanisms of democracy in Venezuela aren't in fact quite strong, people are free to exercise democratic rights, petition for recalls and referendums) and within a short time, 2/3 years at most, there were elections held and all sides were free to engage in them. So alot of caveats, but in principle, I'm not against toppling oligarchic political-party/state systems that only the elite benefit from and replacing it with a fully democratic state which respects basic human rights and helps the overwhelmingly majority of poor in the country.

Had it resulted in mass executions, mass detentions, political courts and so on or even in a dictatorship I wouldn't. I support democracy.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

To right not all coups are bad.
Whats your problem with it?

Just means that you're less interested in right and wrong and more interested in left and right.

The Corinthian

rickybutcher wrote:

So alot of caveats, but in principle, I'm not against toppling oligarchic political-party/state systems that only the elite benefit from and replacing it with a fully democratic state which respects basic human rights and helps the overwhelmingly majority of poor in the country.

Personally I would put it this way without the caveats. If you can change things democratically (this does not mean you will change them, as what you propose might simply be rejected), then no they're bad. If you have no democratic means then they may be your only option.

That Chavez was able to successfully use the democratic route after his failed coup would indicate the former case. Thus no, his coup attempt was wrong.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

Just means that you're less interested in right and wrong and more interested in left and right.

Not at all. Big presumption there btw.
What do you think was wrong about the 1992 coup what should he have done?
Would it be right to stand by while a corrupt Gov sells you country from under you, orders the army to shoot civilians, dissappear thousands of people to mass graves. Suppose he could have waited until the next election let the graves fill up a bit more.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

Not at all. Big presumption there btw.
What do you think was wrong about the 1992 coup what should he have done?
Would it be right to stand by while a corrupt Gov sells you country from under you, orders the army to shoot civilians, dissappear thousands of people to mass graves. Suppose he could have waited until the next election let the graves fill up a bit more.

You'll note I've already responded to this in my previous post.

rickybutcher

Simple minded reasoning. The coup attempt gave Chavez the credibility and momentum to turn it into a political campaign. Without it he would not be President today.