Center for American Progress on Chavez's victory

[kiahzero]

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=139408
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appears to have survived an August 15 referendum that might have recalled him from power. This is certain to disappoint the Bush administration, whose earlier embrace of a failed military coup and open disregard for political neutrality in the hemisphere emboldened the populist president and enabled him to deflect attention from his own slow assault on democratic institutions. In the end, the Bush administration may have contributed to a referendum victory for Chavez.

Venezuela provides but one example of the Bush administration's missteps on democracy. The administration has touted its commitment to promoting democracy in the Middle East and around the globe, arguing correctly that democracy is an essential component of a peaceful and prosperous world. Yet in our own hemisphere, the administration's policies have not only eroded America's authority as a defender of democracy, but have also turned back democratic gains throughout the region.

In some countries, the Bush administration has disregarded the neutrality of the electoral process and instead unabashedly expressed support for individual candidates. In others, the administration has countenanced and even endorsed breaks in constitutional order to replace elected leaders with figures more to its liking, and thus also undermined the multilateral commitments that have evolved over the last decade to defend democracy in the hemisphere. And at a time when democracies in the region are struggling for their survival, the administration has cut foreign aid for many elected governments, while miraculously finding funds to support its ideologically-motivated activities, namely in Cuba.

The Bush administration can help to regain its credibility on democracy and reverse the democratic rollback in the region by:

* Unconditionally supporting democracy and constitutional order in Venezuela despite Chavez's referendum victory;
* Joining and financially supporting the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and Brazil in facilitating a process of national reconciliation in Haiti;
* Securing a bipartisan pledge in Congress to ensure a long-term commitment to provide assistance to Haiti;
* Expanding efforts to work with other countries in the hemisphere – such as Brazil – to address political crises;
* Making a serious effort to find funding to support struggling democracies in the region; and
* Creating a Council for Democracy within the Organization of American States (OAS).

<snip>

I think that they explained the situation quite well, but I'm curious what others think. Did the Bush Administration inadvertantly contribute to Chavez's win? Does this reflect problems with United States foreign policy in the Americas?

[Larkspur]

1. Since NED was overtly funding Chavez's opposition, I'd say yeah Bush

contributed to the overwhelming mandate Chavez got from the people. On top of NED, the 2002 failed coup was brillantly used by Chavez to prove that Bush and the Neo-cons were meddling in Venezuela's internal affairs to suit US imperialistic goals.

[DenverDem]

2. How is Chavez assaulting democratic institutions?

What does that phrase mean?

[kiahzero]

3. Some instances of what they're talking about

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530032004
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530052003?open&of=ENG-VEN
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530032004?open&of=ENG-VEN
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530052004?open&of=ENG-VEN

I would have preferred if CfAP had listed the specific abuses they were referring to, but there is information out there on the AI website (and probably on HRW as well).

Chavez is probably better than his opposition, especially for the poor, but that doesn't mean he's a saint.

[DenverDem]

4. How much of this is reaction to outside agents provacateurs?

"The Opposition" is largely CIA. Hard to know what the truth of the situation is.

[kiahzero]

5. Whose agents provacateur?

That doesn't make a bit of sense. You argue that the opposition is largely CIA, and that the government's excessive reaction is a response to agents provacateur. Who put the agents there, and to what end?

The only way I can understand what you're going for is if you're trying to say that the CIA placed agents provacateur into it's own demonstrations, so that the government would assault their human rights, all in an elaborate attempt to discredit the Chavez government.

Is that, in fact, what you're saying, or have I overthought this?

[DenverDem]

9. If CIA is in there promoting actions against the elected government

they have no rights, they are criminals. Not very elaborate nor anything new for CIA.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

[kiahzero]

10. So the presence of the CIA allows governments to act

in anti-democratic manners?

I never realized two wrongs actually did equal a right.

[DenverDem]

11. If Chavez is defending himself from a coup, how is that anti-democratic?

Especially if that coup is being launched by the United States.

The imperialist invaders are the anti-democratic criminals.

So you think it was OK for American funded mercenaries to overthrow Aristede in Haiti?
Same instigators.

[kiahzero]

15. How about not accusing me of shit?

So you think it was OK for American funded mercenaries to overthrow Aristede in Haiti?

Nope - if you bothered to search, you would know that I condemned that action, repeatedly.

Interesting that you would bring up Aristide, though, since the point being made against Chavez is similar to the one made against Aristide - he's no saint. That doesn't mean that the coup was justified, in either country.

But labeling the recall election a "coup" is a misuse of the word, and even if it were, that doesn't give the Chavez government permission to violate the rights of the people at the protests.

[K-W]

6. That isnt a very strong case.

He has abused human rights when dealing with opposition protests. Its not good, but they do that here in the US. And he is in a far more difficult situation than the US government. The Center for American Progress article suggests that Chavez keeping power is a minus for democracy. I would disagree strongly. He isnt perfect, but I dont think him leaving office would signal a better human rights record for venezuala.

[kiahzero]

7. Not really

I can see where you're getting that from, though. I assume this sentence was one that stuck out at you?

Unconditionally supporting democracy and constitutional order in Venezuela despite Chavez's referendum victory

I'm pretty sure that's referring to the ideological disparity between the Bush Administration and Chavez; in other words, even though they don't agree with the outcome, supporting the democratic process.

On Edit for Clarity: The "Not Really" refers to the idea that CfAP is arguing that Chavez is a negative for democracy.

[K-W]

8. No it was this section.

"enabled him to deflect attention from his own slow assault on democratic institutions. In the end, the Bush administration may have contributed to a referendum victory for Chavez."

First off, the slow assualt section makes it sound like Chavez is trying to progressively dismantle democracy, not just that his record on human rights has problems. Now Chavez is no saint, but I it isnt my impression that his goal is to destroy democracy. The whole thing reads to me as saying Chavez is trying to destroy democracy and Bush inadvertently helped him keep power. Bush shouldnt have gotten involved due to nuetrality, but Chavez is anti-democratic.

That is how I read it still, and I think that is how it was intended.

[DeadHead67]

14. And how many of the unlanded poor have the rich fucks had murdered?

I don't have the figures in front of me, but a single digit percentage of the population owns over two/thirds of the usable land. When those poor 'brown' people act up, they disappear. So I can't really work up much anger when the opposition to Chavez stubs it's toe kicking the large majority of those who live in Venezuela.

[bemildred]

12. This is Orwellian doublespeak, all of it.

Anyone with a reasonable grasp of Latin American history
and the role of the USA in that history would know that.

Unconditionally supporting democracy and constitutional order in Venezuela despite Chavez's referendum victory

Chavez victory is precisely a victory for democracy and
constitutional order.

But this is tedious. You see this crap over and over.

[K-W]

13. Its sad that alot of dems got hoodwinked on this one.

We still have a long way to go until we have a true progressive movement.