US Considers February 15 Referendum "an Internal Matter" for Venezuela

[Joanne98]

After some missteps and awkward exchanges through the media by Presidents Obama of the US and Chávez of Venezuela (and functionaries that work for each) in recent weeks, the new administration in Washington today made its first official policy statement on relations between the two countries.

During a State Department press briefing this morning in Washington by Acting Department Spokesman Robert Wood, he fielded the first question on Latin American relations in two weeks of these daily briefings. From the State Department transcript:

QUESTION: Is the U.S. Government concerned about this election, this referendum on -- in Venezuela on the 15th of February, and Chavez trying to stay in power?

MR. WOOD: Look, that's an internal matter with regard to Venezuela, and I don't have anything more to say on that.

This newly-stated respect for Venezuela's internal governance marks a clear break from previous US policy that regularly sought to meddle in the country's democratic affairs.

Developing...

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/al-giordano/2009/02/us-considers-february-15-referendum-internal-matter-venezuela

Now cut off the fake protesters money!

[Peace Patriot]

1. You got it, Joanne98! Does this new policy extend to the millions of USAID-NED

dollars and the millions from other budgets, that the Bushwhacks have poured into rightwing coffers in Venezuela, to prop up the fascist minority?

Those millions are already at work propagandizing the Venezuelan people, and supporting, 'training' and organizing fascist youth groups to instigate violent protests and civil disorder, as well as propping up coup plotters and secessionist traitors.

Has the Obama administration called off the USAID-NED and CIA dogs? I really don't know. Obama has likely not been in office long enough to get a handle on all these fascist expenditures. And we probably won't know for some time if this is a lip-service policy or a real one.

Chavez--who is no fool--threw the U.S. ambassador out of Venezuela--for the U.S. meddling in Bolivia (funding, organizing fascist rioters and murderers, this last September)--so the flow of U.S. dirty money to the fascist minority in Venezuela may be somewhat staunched, for the moment, and their never well-organized plots and schemes, disorganized and leaderless. But what Obama policy will be in the future is a big unknown.

The situation with regard to the referendum is this: Chavez enjoys a nearly 70% approval rating--much like the popular leftist leaders in Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and (center-left, but allied with the left) Brazil. Chavez's popularity has apparently gone up over the last year. He was hovering around 60% a year ago. In the last national referendum, in 2007, there were 69 constitutional amendments on the ballot, on a range of issues--a much too complex package of changes--including equal rights for women and gays. Venezuela is a Catholic country, with a particularly rightwing (and political) clergy. That amendment likely sank the package, which was mostly about economic matters, but also included lifting the term limit on the president. The 69 amendment package lost by a hair (50.7% vs. 49.3%). There was a persuadable 10% of the voters who sat on their hands (abstained) or voted against the package. But it was unclear whether the presidential term limit was important in their decision.

The Chavez government is therefore putting that one issue to another national vote--the term limit, and this time, it includes all elected officials (including, say, rightwing provincial governors). The 10% of the voters who were persuadable (by the rightwing) in late 2007, may not vote against Chavez this time, and Chavez has a cushion this time--in his increased popularity. If the term limit is lifted, Chavez will NOT automatically remain as president, for another term or "indefinitely." He has to run for office again, and win, in 2012 (and thereafter, if he decides to). Right now, there is little doubt that he would win re-election. If things change significantly--if his government messes up in some big way*--and/or if the opposition comes up with a viable presidential candidate and program, he could conceivably lose. Venezuela has elections that are far, far, FAR more transparent than our own. That's why they have a kickass leftist president, who would say, with our own Franklin Delano Roosevelt: "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred!"

So their elections pretty reliably reflect what the majority wants. Some may feel that having the leftist revolution in Venezuela so wrapped around one personality is not good for democracy, and a few might vote against lifting term limits on principle, but it's doubtful that many voters would vote solely on those vague bases. But we shall see. It should be a very interesting vote (Feb. 15). I'm glad this issue is being put to a vote, by itself.

If I were a Venezuelan voter, I would vote to lift term limits, because I know what would have happened to the "New Deal"--and to western civilization--if FDR had been denied a 3rd and 4th term. And I know who imposed the term limit on the president here, in the 1950s, and why--the Republicans, to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening in this country again. FDR was vital, as a personality around whom the people could rally, to lock in the progressive gains of the "New Deal," and to defeat Nazi Germany (which had attacked Europe and England) and Imperial Japan (which had attacked us).

I think another such battle is coming in Venezuela, as to their social justice advances, and in South America, with Venezuela in the middle of it, as to who is going to control Venezuela's oil (also Ecuador's), and whether or not South America's new unity--its 'common market,' UNASUR--is going to succeed with its goals of Latin American sovereignty and social justice. This battle may be bloody--an outright war (which the Bushwhacks actually tried to start last year, with the U.S./Colombia bombing-raid on Ecuador); a 'dirty war' (using proxy dictators) as we have seen before in South America (and see, currently, in Colombia); or perhaps a strictly political/economic war (more Clinton's style, and possibly Obama's--we don't yet know).

Donald Rumsfeld envisioned using several tactics--the U.S./Colombia 'free trade' deal (economic warfare); the "dirty war" in Colombia and elsewhere (aka, the "war on drugs"); civil wars in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia to split off the oil rich provinces into fascist mini-states and to starve and disrupt the national governments (for which he urged "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America, in his Washington Post op-ed 12/1/07), and more psyops and propaganda (he urged a government internet campaign on South America). Rumsfeld likely has the resources to procced with some of this as a private war--with or without official or covert U.S. support.

THAT is why I would vote to lift term limits--so that if Venezuela needs a strong, courageous, FDR-like leader, to fight these battles, the people have that choice. I don't think Chavez is a "dictator" or has any inclination to become one. He is trusted by virtually all other South American leaders--and is close friends and allies with many. The people of Venezuela have fought for him as their leader--through coups and recalls and several elections. They overwhelmingly approve of him. And if they want him as president, they should have him.