Lulu visited Chavez two weeks before the Venezuelan presidential election in December, on a state visit to open the new Orinoco bridge to Brazil. He could have found an excuse not to do that just before the election. And this was not long after Chavez's "Bush is the devil" remark at the UN. Also, Rafael Correa, campaigning in Ecuador, when asked about Chavez's devil remark, said that it was an insult to the devil. So these guys were not running from Chavez, but rather making a big point of showing their support. And somewhere else I read that the President of Colombia, Uribe, had refused to participate in Bush Junta plots against Chavez. So even Colombia is feeling the tug of regional solidarity.
What we're seeing from the Bush Junta State Department and its lapdog corporate press is a script--much like the one about "Chavez, the Dictator." This script--which has no connection to reality whatsoever, and resembles the script, say, about Iraq and WMDs--is that Chavez is disliked, is somehow being shunned, and is causing "divisions" and controversy. The first whiff of this script had to do with Peruvian election last year. They all said that the endorsement that Chavez and Morales (but they really meant just Chavez, the current target) did for the leftist candidate in Peru, Ollanta Humala, part way through the election, lost Humala support because (heavy script here) the Peruvians "resented" interference from neighboring states. In fact, though, Humala INCREASED his support by 15% between the preliminary and the general election, precisely BECAUSE of Chavez's and Morales' endorsement. That increase did not come from the right. (Humala knocked the rightwing candidate out of the race in the preliminary.) It had to have come from the indigenous--and I don't imagine that the indigenous in the Andes care all that much about colonial-era borders. The chance to elect a SECOND indigenous president in South America (Humala, like Morales is 100% indigenous) would have overridden any such resentment--if it existed at all, which I sincerely doubt. I think the Chavez/Morales endorsement stimulated the grass roots get-out-the-vote effort among the indigenous. And Morales' endorsement was probably more key to it than Chavez's, although Chavez (part Spanish, part black, part indigenous) has also been a champion of the indigenous (who are the poorest of the poor). Humala jumped from 30% of the vote to 45% of the vote, AFTER the Morales/Chavez endorsement. But this didn't fit the CORPORATE SCRIPT. They said that the endorsement cost Humala the election. That's just not so. Humala had come out of nowhere--with no money and no experience--and almost won the presidency, in an astonishing political performance (and he had an additional handicap of a brother who is too close to armed leftist revolutionaries and who was accused of involvement in a police shooting). The "script" never considered where that 15% increase in support came from. The "script" has no on-the-ground reality to it. It is a Bushite/Corporate fantasy--for OUR consumption.
Those of us who follow these developments closely have been dumbfounded by the charge that Chavez is "increasingly dictatorial." All evidence points to EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE--that real democracy is happening in Venezuela for the first time. Chavez suffered a US-backed violent coup attempt--and has shown extraordinary RESTRAINT in his reaction to it. Zero political retribution. Zero police or military type retribution. No storming of the oppositions' headquarters, or massive arrests. No shutdown of the press. All of which would have been understandable in that circumstance. (Can you imagine the reacting of "Homeland Security" here if a violent military coup were attempted?) People were killed in the coup attempt--so the two chief conspirators were prosecuted and jailed. And one corporate TV station, which actively participated in the coup attempt, is going to have its license to use the public airwaves pulled, when it comes up for renewal. (The same thing would happen to any TV or radio station in the US that colluded in the attempted violent overthrow of the government. Use of the public airwaves is a privilege, not a right.) In any case, the Bolivarian revolution does not belong to Chavez alone. He is just the elected leader. It is a VENEZUELAN revolution--very grass roots driven--and it is hugely popular. And I don't think there are any people in the world more devoted to their DEMOCRACY than the Venezuelans are. They wouldn't put up with a dictator.
And I think we have all finally realized--especially since the WORDING of the attacks on Chavez in our war profiteering corporate news monopoly press is all very similar--that we are looking at a script, possibly an actual script, shared among the Bush State Dept. and the NYT, the WP, the WSJ, AP and all the rest. "Increasingly dictatorial." "Friend of Fidel Castro." "The leftist president of Venezuela." (They never ever say the "rightwing President of the U.S.").
And it is no doubt one of these scripts about "nationalization" of Bolivia's resources that LuLu is reacting to. Why else would he make a point to say that Bolivia has a right to its own resources? Why would he NEED to speak to Bolivia's sovereignty as a nation?
Also, it's a great touch that he added that Brazil should pay a FAIR PRICE to Bolivia. I read elsewhere that Morales has successfully negotiated a good deal for Bolivia with the oil giants, but the latter are never to be trusted, and are likely, even now, plotting to overthrow him. So Lulu is backing him up--but in response to what, I'm not sure.
Here's a good article about Morales' deal (and other developments). (I don't agree with the last sentence, though.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/garver01202007.html <
http://www.counterpunch.org/garver01202007.html> And for anyone who wants a great photo of Morales, Chavez and Correa together, here it is. I love this photo!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/ecuador_president
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
