|
I have been following his writings for some time, and, among other things, he has never acknowledged the spectacular economic growth that the Chavez administration achieved during the 2003 to 2008 period, just following the U.S. supported rightwing coup attempt, through the oil bosses' lockout that followed, the USAID-funded recall election in 2004 and non-stop propaganda from the U.S. state department and the corporate media. They maintained a 10% economic growth, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil). Nor has he acknowledged the Chavez's government's other spectacular achievements, such as cutting poverty in half and cutting extreme poverty by over 70%. Venezuela was just designated THE MOST EQUAL COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA, on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Why would Carroll not mention this sort of this--ever?
So, can we trust such a typically 100% biased reporter to be giving us an objective assessment now, after the Bush Junta-induced worldwide depression hit the price of oil (knocking it down by two thirds)?
I simply can't. I don't trust this writer. I think that he has assembled a lot of gossip, wishful thinking and other garbage from these cables--hearsay, rumors, tattle and twaddle--to paint a pre-determined picture of the 'failure' of a leader whom he has hated all along. This might as well have been a Wall Street Urinal or Miami Hairball article. It might as well have been written by Exxon Mobil's P.R. department.
Let me give you a for instance. Carroll gleans from the cables alleged conversations between U.S./Bushwhack ambassador Patrick Duddy (whom Chavez had thrown out of Venezuela, and was then re-appointed by Obama when US/Venezuela relations were restored) and the rightwing Italian ambassador, Luigi Maccotta, representing the corrupt rightwing billionaire running Italy (Silvio Berlusconi), to the effect that the Italian oil company, ENI, "squeezed" Venezuela in oil contract negotiations, thus...
"Italy's ambassador to Caracas, Luigi Maccotta, told his US counterpart that Italian oil company ENI squeezed PDVSA over an Orinoco belt deal in January this year knowing it had no one else to turn to. // The Italians delayed the signing by two days to reinforce the Venezuelan government's 'need for ENI'. Paolo Scaroni, the company's CEO, then faced down Venezuela's oil minister, Rafael Ramirez, over changes to terms and conditions."--from the OP
Ever been in a contract negotiation? This is quite NORMAL behavior in tough negotiations, in particular with lots of money at stake. Everybody uses what leverage they have, to get the best deal they can get, from their own perspective--whether time pressures (delays) to get better terms, or the perceived desire of the other side to close the deal, or whatever. To interpret this rightwinger/corporate shill to rightwinger/corporate shill reported conversation (hearsay) as Chavez being "desperate" is coloration, by the reporter. The Chavez government controls the BIGGEST OIL RESERVE IN THE WORLD (twice Saudi Arabia's--according to the USGS). And they have an economy that is in fairly good shape, considering what the Bush Junta did. They have low unemployment. They started off Great Depression II with high cash reserves. They were able to devalue the bolivar voluntarily. They can manage on slightly higher oil prices and are projecting some growth. And they have MANY suitors for their oil. (In fact, ENI was just one of eight companies, from as many countries, with whom they've signed initial agreements.)
Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and corporate shills like Duddy and Maccotta have a big stake in bad-mouthing Chavez, and Maccotta may have had a big stake in bragging to the U.S. (corporate shill) ambassador that ENI got itself an especially good deal (if it did). For instance, Duddy may have been pissed that the Italian company would deal with Venezuela, against U.S. wishes. (Exxon Mobil had walked out in a snit.) So Macotta had to color it up. And it may well be that the Chavez government was NOT pressured, but had intended to yield on certain terms of the agreement all along. I don't think we can tell from this article, or the cables (IF the cable contents are being accurately portrayed here).
I don't trust the reporter, Carroll. I don't trust Duddy. I don't the Berscoluni appointee. I think people like Duddy--just like reporter Carroll--go after bits and pieces of evidence--from moles and worms within targeted governments--to serve certain agendas, including influencing U.S. policy, and pleasing their bosses. Duddy's bits and pieces are probably to fed to reporters like Carroll, to get articles like this, of which we have seen numerous examples.
I saw another cable story, recently, in which a scribbler in the U.S. foreign service wrote a cable which the U.S. economic emissary signed off on (but didn't write) reporting that a French economic emissary (for a rightwing government) had told the U.S. emissary that he had been told by a Brazilian official that the leftist government of Lula da Silva of Brazil wanted to distance from Chavez. This occurred JUST AFTER Lula da Silva had invited the president of Iran to Brazil, following Chavez doing the same. How is that "distance" ? It ain't. It's more like da Silva having Chavez's back, which he has been doing all along. They are close friends and allies. This was not only fourth-hand garbage, it was very likely a Brazilian official trying to undermine--or wishfully thinking about--Lula da Silva's policy. And who knows what the French economic emissary's agenda was in dealing with what was probably a disgruntled Brazilian official.
We have also to keep in mind that a lot of these cables (including the one I just described) are not marked "top secret"; they are marked "confidential"--so a seasoned U.S. state department operative like Duddy would know how easily his cable could be leaked. It may have been written TO be leaked.
I'm not going to go through the entire Rory Carroll article because I consider his writing to be biased crapola. And I fully expect the Chavez government to solve any problems they may have, which they have successfully done, time and again, despite the dire picture of Venezuela that crapola articles like this have been painting FOR HALF A DECADE and more.
I urge people to GET A MEMORY. How often has this article been written? HUNDREDS of times, NEVER with any clue as to WHY the Chavez government has been hugely popular in Venezuela and has twice been elected--in elections that are far, FAR more transparent than our own--by big majorities.
The multinational corporations and war profiteers that reporters like Rory Carroll, and ambassadors like Duddy, are shills for may, indeed, succeed in bringing the Chavez government down one day. That has been their purpose from the beginning. That is their purpose now. And propaganda is one tool that they are using. If they do, it will be a tragedy for the many people who are literate now in Venezuela, who weren't before, for the many who have college educations who never had that opportunity before, for the many who now have health care who never had it before, for the many who now vote and participate in their society who felt too hopeless to do so before, and for all who have benefited from the grass roots activists who worked to get the Chavez government elected and/or worked on creating an honest, transparent election system in which that could happen. A tragedy for them; a victory for Exxon Mobil.
Where is mention, in ANY corpo-fascist article, of EVEN ONE of the many achievements of the Chavez government? You won't find ANY. And that tells us not only what they don't value--education, literacy, opportunity for the poor, transparent elections--but also what they don't want us to know.
Where, in any U.S. foreign service cable (thus far), is there ANY mention of the Chavez government's great success against poverty and the other reasons why Venezuelans have voted for this government--let alone any mention of the elements of honest elections?
I'll lay money on NOT one. Because education, poverty, honest elections and good government DON'T INTEREST these corporate diplomats, at all. U.S. corporate profit--making the rich richer--is their ONLY interest, and trying to UNDERMINE democracies such as Venezuela's, and even topple them, in the interest of corporations, war profiteers and the super-rich, is their ONLY real activity. They live in this corporate-dominated atmosphere, day in and day out. Consider this, when you read their cables. Consider what they are wishing for, WHO they are consulting and who these cable scribblings are for.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
