Venezuela: Hugo Chavez's Revolution
ICG, 22 Feb 07: Venezuela: Hugo Chavez's Revolution
Quote:
...Three scenarios could trouble Chávez. The likeliest, at least in the next few years, is that problems will arise if oil prices drop to a point where the president can neither sustain current social spending, nor paper over the economic distortions produced by exchange rate and price controls, inflation and increasing dependence on imports....
...A second possibility is political recovery of the opposition to the point where it could take control of the National Assembly and provide a serious alternative. This is a distant prospect, since further splintering of the opposition has become apparent, but, in the event, the president might choose to use the considerable array of non-democratic tools he has amassed over the last eight years, and diehard Chavistas might be prepared to resort to violence to defend the regime....
...A third scenario involves a challenge to Chávez from within his movement. There are some fissures and tensions over where the president is taking the country, and at some point it is conceivable that elements within the administration might challenge Chávez´s handling of power....
...There is also the question as to what kind of country any non-Bolivarian president would inherit. If current trends continue, an opposition president would face a partisan military, the ultimate arbiter of power, with limited means by which to control it....
...As in Colombia and Mexico, there is an additional danger of crime, particularly drugs, creating a destabilising dynamic, corrupting institutions on a scale that causes the public to lose what little faith remains in the police and judiciary. Corruption of the armed forces, already evident, could also undermine security. More dangerous still would be a transformation of the armed, irregular Chavista groups into criminal mafias....
...Violent internal conflict is only potential in these scenarios and situations, not inevitable, but if President Chávez continues to polarise society and dismantle the checks and balances of representative democracy as he has for eight years, the risks are considerable.
Venezuelan TV Station Goes Dark
29 May LA Times - Venezuelan TV Station Goes Dark by Chris Kraul.
Quote:
Venezuelan folk music, a Cuban documentary and heavy doses of government propaganda glorifying "21st century socialism" highlighted the first day of a new television channel that on Monday took over airspace of this nation's oldest and most popular station, a frequent critic of leftist President Hugo Chavez.
At midnight Sunday, Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV, went dark for the first time in 53 years after the Chavez government refused to renew its broadcast license, alleging violations of telecommunications law. That decision, announced in December, has been slammed by international press freedom groups, several governments and even some Chavez supporters.
Protests that began Sunday night around the national telecommunications regulatory commission's office continued into the morning at several universities in the Caracas area...
Irregular Asymmetric Conflict and Hugo Chavez
SSI, 24 Aug 07: Latin America's New Security Reality: Irregular Asymmetric Conflict and Hugo Chavez
Quote:
In 2005, Dr. Max Manwaring wrote a monograph entitled
Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Bolivarian Socialism, and Asymmetric Warfare. It came at a time when the United States and Venezuela were accelerating a verbal sparing match regarding which country was destabilizing Latin America more. The rhetoric continues. Moreover, President Chavez shows no sign of standing down; he slowly and deliberately centralizes his power in Venezuela, and carefully and adroitly articulates his Bolivarian dream (the idea of a Latin American Liberation Movement against U.S. economic and political imperialism). Yet, most North Americans dismiss Chavez as a “nut case,” or—even if he is a threat to the security and stability of the Hemisphere—the possibilities of that threat coming to fruition are too far into the future to worry about.
Thus, Dr. Manwaring’s intent in this new monograph is to explain in greater depth what President Chavez is doing and how he is doing it. First, he explains that Hugo Chavez’s threat is straightforward, and that it is being translated into a consistent, subtle, ambiguous, and ambitious struggle for power that is beginning to insinuate itself into political life in much of the Western Hemisphere. Second, he shows how President Chavez is encouraging his Venezuelan and other followers to pursue a confrontational, populist, and nationalistic agenda that will be achieved only by (1) radically changing the traditional politics of the Venezuelan state—and other Latin American states—to that of “direct” (totalitarian) democracy; (2) destroying North American hegemony throughout all of Latin America by conducting an irregular Fourth-Generation War “Super Insurgency”; and, (3) country-by-country, building a great new Bolivarian state out of a phased Program for the Liberation of Latin America....
"This could be the start of a war in South America,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/...zuela_colombia
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/...zuela_colombia
Ah Hugo, in my opinion you are a dollar store version of Cesear. But you do keep South America interesting. I wouldn't put invading Colombia beyond his mindset, could he pull that off? Would Venezuala support him and if so for how long.
I think he could launch an invasion but beyond a few weeks it would bog down, certaintly not worth the costs. Unless he really believes his investigation into the "real reason" for Simon Bolivar's death was by Colombian Agents...
-T
My take on this would be a bit different: I blame the US.
Post 9/11 the US unilaterally changed the rules of the game, they had significant international sympathy - and the military/diplomatic/economic superpower status did not exactly encourage other states to be too vocal in their complaints. They significantly weakened their position on human rights (enhanced interrogation techniques, Gitmo etc.) and on the norms of international sovereignty (kidnapping foreign nationals in other countries AKA extraordinary rendition) and this week we have seen military strikes in Pakistan and Somalia (presumably by US forces).
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Having changed the rules others have taken the opportunity to jump on the band waggon. Now it is the 'new norm' for any tin pot nasty-piece-of-work who has control of their countries military - regardless of how they got there - to call anyone they want to get rid of a terrorist and massacre them. If that includes extremely repressive tactics (Russia vs Chechen's, IDF vs Lebanon) or forays into another country (Turkey/Iraq, Colombia/Ecuador) then the new rules say no problem - as long as you remember to call whoever you want to attack a terrorist.
If the US intends to make the rules and then enforce them then they must expect to have to face vastly increased opposition across the board; friends shift to neutral, neutral to hostile and hostile to terrorist.
Just my $.02
Seems to me this ignores a lot of history...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JJackson
Post 9/11 the US unilaterally changed the rules of the game, they had significant international sympathy...
While the rest of your comment has has elements of truth in it, the US has thrown its weight around internationally and unilaterally since 1795.
As did great Britain in the day -- and from whom we learned to be assertive -- as have numerous others over the years.
Nothing new here. Look at Ol' Fidel -- he and Che were throwing their weight around before all you young folks realized it and long before 9/11 -- about 40 years before. Go elsewhere in the world and there are myriad examples.
I really don't mind folks blaming the US for all the ills of the world but it would be nice if they'd get their facts straight. ;)
To my mind, you have no need to apologize, nothing
wrong with saying what you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JJackson
Firstly an apology, I had just waded through the BBC international site and was seething from the unnecessary loss of life and general hatred in the days news. I then made two hasty and provocative posts which, on reflection, should have been toned down.
Sorry Steve and everyone else.
That said I would still disagree with Ken on 9/11 being a watershed in US policy. The birth of the GWOT was not the start of those with power throwing their weight around but it was a major change in policy focus and I would argue counter-productively...
I think that you're partly correct, it was a 'policy change' of sorts -- but only in that it became a stated policy rather than an unstated but actual policy we have pursued for over 200 years. Both Britain and France were horrified in 1801 that we elected to attack the Barbary Corsairs rather than pay tribute and tolerate their enslavement of westerners. As has been said, there is little new under the sun.
What Bush did was flout the rules of international diplomacy; he rejected Kyoto -- but so had the US Senate some years before, it was never going to be ratified. Same thing applies to the International Criminal court; the Senate will never agree to that (correctly in my opinion). Bush didn't change reality, he merely talked about it. Look at pre-emptive strikes for example; we've done literally hundreds over the years; just never announced it as a policy. Bush did that -- that just got a lot of people's knickers in a twist when all he really did was give voice to something we -- and most nations in the world -- have always practiced but wouldn't talk about.
I've been traveling internationally since 1947. Anti-Americanism was present then and it has broadly stayed at the same level since. Viet Nam was a high point; more approbation appeared then than does today.
Quote:
As to the Brits in days of empire I would not even consider trying defend some of their actions, opium, East India company etc. etc. I don’t know the origin of the term ‘Gunboat diplomacy’ but I have a nasty feeling we might have spawned it.
Why would you not defend it? You had nothing to do with it. Britain reacted in tune with the times to events. Did they make mistakes? Sure. However, you did more good than harm. You have every right to be proud of the accomplishments of the empire and no need to be apologetic. I cannot understand this new trait of self-flagellation in the European hearth; I see it as self righteous but self defeating foolishness.
Quote:
...So much misery for so little gain, this pattern of actions keeps being repeated and keeps swelling the ranks and coffers of the real enemy. Don’t back the despots, when civilians need help, help them and make a few friends. So much damage has been done to America’s reputation in the Muslim world it may be a very long time before they start saluting the Stars and Stripes but lets try and at least get a few less burnt.
If everyone was as nice as you undoubtedly are and shared your views, that would be a good wish. regrettably, I fear a good many in this world are not that nice.
I'd also submit that had the US not 'turned the other cheek' so very many times in bowing to international good will pressures in the past and had instead responded fairly and forcefully to provocations we would not have many of the problems that today exist in the world. the meek may inherit the Earth -- but there are a lot of un-meek folks out there who work mightily to preclude that...
Chavez Offered to Hold Hostages
More grist for the Andes mill...
Quote:
Colombia: Rebel documents talk of uranium offer
By Tyler Bridge and Jenny Carolina Gonzalez | Miami Herald
BOGOTA — A mysterious "Belisario'' offered to sell Colombian rebels uranium that could be used for a dirty bomb. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez feuded with Cuba. Chavez offered to move hostages held by the rebels to Venezuela — and hold them there.
That's just some of the content in 15 documents released Tuesday by Colombian police, who said they'd been found in the captured laptop of the rebel's No. 2 commander, Raul Reyes, who was killed Saturday when Colombian forces attacked his camp inside Ecuador.
Couple of things being floating are....
First, Hugo's bully pulpit and blustering has more to do with the price of oil than almost anything else. Remember, spot oil jumped from right at $100 a Bbl. to right around $106.
The smart money in the oil markets are still saying that Venezuela's oil productions keeps decreasing (slight drops almost monthly), so Hugo's got to keep his cash inflows steady. He's doing what he's got to do to get the cash.
Problem is, it's a short term fix. But as to following through and taking on Columbia, not likely.
To show you how stupid it's gotten, Venezuela has just decreed that all Columbia-Venezuela order trade be curtailed (about $6 bil, give or take). Most of that $6 billion that Venezuela imports from Columbia is FOOD
Guy's a genius. He's going to starve his own people to get back at Columbia.
Second point, there's another player in all of this that few see. Just last month, Columbia & Israel signed a deal to (1) to update the 11 Kfir C7s to the C10 version and (2) acquire another 13 former Israeli Air Force Kfir C10s.
Link
Now, President Hugo has already allied himself with some fairly unsavory characters (from Israel's POV), and hey, guy gets stupid & comes across the Columbian border, who's to say that Hugo's pilots couldn't end up facing some pretty tough, first rate competition in the air (and I'm not talking from the US).
Just a few thoughts....
True and always generally enjoyable to
watch the benefits of single-mindedness in action... :wry:
Not quite clear just yet..
Originally posted by Wildcat:
Quote:
The bad news is that Chavez is still in power, and he successfully stood up to Uribe without much in the way of repercussions.
Yes, and no. Latest floating out there is that (a) the material coming out of the 2 notebooks "cannot be verified as authentic":rolleyes:, and (b) There's a flood of the material being pushed out in front of God and everybody, for all to see.:eek: Uribe has played this just beautifully.
Wait for it, there's even more to come. Some of the material is likely to be very sensitive, to some certain political figures back home here.
Hugo and his minions are working to spin the press like nonstop whirling dervishes, Correa [President, Ecuador] is trying to figure out a way to keep accommodating FARC without looking complicit with all the released email bombshells, and Uribe is sitting back and quietly laughing to himself.
Going to be fun to watch as it plays out.
Interesting Turm of Events....
Quote:
Venezuela to host Russia navy exercise in Caribbean
Dated: Saturday; September 6, 2008
(Reuters) - Several Russian ships and 1,000 soldiers will take part in joint naval maneuvers with Venezuela in the Caribbean Sea later this year, exercises likely to increase diplomatic tensions with Washington, a pro-government newspaper reported on Saturday.
Quoting Venezuela's naval intelligence director, Salbarore Cammarata, the newspaper Vea said four Russian boats would visit Venezuelan waters from November 10 to 14.
Plans for the naval operations come at a time of heightened diplomatic tension and Cold War-style rhetoric between Moscow and the United States over the recent war in Georgia and plans for a U.S. missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland.
Link to Article
This should be a "sure thing" to re-start the debate over what actions the US should take. One thing it will accomplish in the American hemisphere is to re-start the entire Free Trade argument over the deal with Columbia, along with new arms shipments and additional military support for Columbia.
But more importantly, I could see this creating an impetus for new US arms exports of certain types of "defensive" weaponry to democratically inclined nations currently sharing a border with Russia. I wonder how much in current gen ATGM's could be purchased with a billion dollars or so?
Although your probably right about the debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Watcher In The Middle
Link to Article
This should be a "sure thing" to re-start the debate over what actions the US should take. One thing it will accomplish in the American hemisphere is to re-start the entire Free Trade argument over the deal with Columbia, along with new arms shipments and additional military support for Columbia.
But more importantly, I could see this creating an impetus for new US arms exports of certain types of "defensive" weaponry to democratically inclined nations currently sharing a border with Russia. I wonder how much in current gen ATGM's could be purchased with a billion dollars or so?
I'm still kinda curious as to exactly how much of a threat Hugo is to anyone considering his own internal problems and as such these actions are simply good for exactly good enough reason for what you stated. Everyone else around him arming up. Not quite sure how that helps him in his mindset.
As to Russia sending ships there for exercises I'd think it might be somewhat of a bummer to those in the Russian navy.
Think about it :
On the one hand you could be training and taking part of large scale operations with some of the strongest and most potent Naval forces ever
or
Option number two -Go play with Chavez (I'd be willing to bet there are some very perturbed officers right about now)