Should Kerry Have Different Positions on Chavez And Aristide?

[DrFunkenstein]

I don't see any daylight between Kerry's position on the democratically-elected leaders of Haiti and Venezuela. Journalistic spin aside of what this "really means" in an election year, here is Kerry - an 18 year veteran of the Foreign Relations Committee - on Chavez:

"With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

...

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela."

-------------------------

And Kerry on the Aristide (from the NYTimes):

"I would have been prepared to send troops immediately, period," Mr. Kerry said on Friday, expressing astonishment that President Bush, who talks of supporting democratically elected leaders, withheld any aid and then helped spirit Mr. Aristide into exile after saying the United States could not protect him.

"Look, Aristide was no picnic, and did a lot of things wrong," Mr. Kerry said. But Washington "had understandings in the region about the right of a democratic regime to ask for help. And we contravened all of that. I think it's a terrible message to the region, democracies, and it's shortsighted."

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/000748.html

In both cases, Kerry felt that each figure made for a lousy leader, but that it was important to preserve the fragile beginnings of democracy in a region more comfortable with the "steady hand" (albeit brutal) of dictatorships. Kerry's failure to "support" Chavez is not anti-democratic. In fact, it is resoundingly pro-democratic.

His position on both countries is absolutely consistent, and consistent with the four pillars of Kerry's foreign policy that I have laid out:

1. Conduct yourself like a chessmaster. Understand short-term effects, but have long-term goals.

2. Lay the case out to the public on why international policies matter. Americans are notoriously short-sighted and short attention-spanned. They need to understand what the short and longview are to gain consent. Government accountability is crucial to this.

3. Understand the ways culture informs policy for other nations. Although someone may have travelled to a country, that doesn't mean they understand how culture informs public policy. Kerry knows this stuff.

4. Maintain an absolute commitment to the long-term need for both international cooperation and raising international standards of conduct.

See this post on Kerry and China to understand where these four pillars come from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=416541

[legin]

1. Chavez predecessor

tried to ignore OPEC and cheat on his quotas. OPEC in reply and protecting their cartell upped their production to punish his predecessor, by droping the price of oil to something like $14 a barrel. Chavez co-operates with OPEC and is an oil price hawk. He is worth an extra $10-$20 a barrel over a more 'accomadating' leader. Hence the u.s. political elite want to get rid of him.

[legin]

2. A more learned source

<<snip>>

Viva Chavez

Three factors came to undermine OPEC's attempts at sustaining prices above $20 per barrel as the 1990s wore on. Venezuela, a key OPEC member with the ability to influence Atlantic Basin markets, and its national oil company PDVSA adopted a radically new strategy under the company's dynamic new president, Luis Guisti. Guisti began buying up refineries in the US, creating "captive buyers" for Venezuelan crude. As Venezuela's overseas refining capacity increased, it set in train plans to increase domestic crude oil capacity to feed into its downstream assets overseas. In this way, Caracas planned to become North America's main oil exporter and shut out the competition. Guisti's bid for higher production meant he paid little attention to OPEC quotas and even threatened to withdraw Venezuela, a founding member, from the organization.

Around the same time, Iraqi oil returned to the market under the auspices of the UN Oil for Food program. At first, exports were restricted to a dollar amount, but eventually all external constraints on Iraqi oil sales were removed. When it came on the market in the winter of 1997, Iraqi oil added a further burden to world oil markets already reeling from weakening demand.

The third factor, a major contributor to weaker demand, was the Asian financial crisis in 1997. Gulf producers saw Asia as their principal growth market -- the market that had saved them during the grim days of the late 1980s when non-OPEC crude from the Soviet Union, the North Sea and Mexico had crowded them out of the Atlantic Basin. Now, with Venezuela's strategy targeting North America and the Atlantic Basin, the Gulf producers, particularly Saudi Arabia, feared the effects would be doubled. The threat to the Saudis was real enough for them to allow prices to fall in 1998 to single digits. Much to the surprise of many, the oil price was allowed to bump along the bottom until early 1999.

Two years of low oil prices completely knocked the bottom out of the beleaguered Venezuelan economy just as elections were held in late 1998. Those elections saw the rise to power of Hugo Chavez. Under the tutelage of former guerilla leader Ali Rodriguez, a member of the National Assembly with a keen interest in the oil markets and current head of PDVSA, Chavez brought Venezuela back into the OPEC fold. Higher oil prices were necessary for Chavez's plans to accelerate income redistribution in the country. Higher oil revenues would go directly to his core constituency, the poor underclass of Venezuela's main cities, who had long maintained that Venezuela is a resource-rich country largely monopolized by a small circle of businessmen, bureaucrats and an "aristocracy of labor." At the March 1999 OPEC meeting, in a landmark deal that bespoke new Saudi attitudes toward oil prices as much as those of Chavez, the Saudis agreed to cut output below their "line in the sand" of 8 million b/d, while the Venezuelans cut theirs below 3 million b/d. With other OPEC members and even non-OPEC members (including Mexico and Norway) cooperating, a substantial amount of oil was removed from the markets.

Traders took this as a strong indication that OPEC members had stopped competing for market share. Supported by unprecedented OPEC cohesion and global economic recovery from 1998-2000, oil prices reached the upper $30s per barrel by the summer of 2000. World oil markets were giving the oil producers' organization the best of both worlds -- high oil prices and higher production.

<<snip>>

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer227/227_alkadiri_mohamedi.html

[peacetalksforall]

3. Kerry cannot support Nader.

Nader said, as everyone knows, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

It's up to Kerry, isn't it?

How much hope is there?

[DrFunkenstein]

5. No Difference Between GOP And Dems!?!

And Kerry on the Aristide (from the NYTimes):

"I would have been prepared to send troops immediately, period," Mr. Kerry said on Friday, expressing astonishment that President Bush, who talks of supporting democratically elected leaders, withheld any aid and then helped spirit Mr. Aristide into exile after saying the United States could not protect him.

"Look, Aristide was no picnic, and did a lot of things wrong," Mr. Kerry said. But Washington "had understandings in the region about the right of a democratic regime to ask for help. And we contravened all of that. I think it's a terrible message to the region, democracies, and it's shortsighted."

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/000748.html

Gee, that looks sorta like a significant difference and all...

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Oops, Forgot This One...

"Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela."

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. seems pretty consistent to me

But, hey, what do I know?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Why Are People That Disagree With You Considered Freepers?

Judging by what I've read about Chavez and heard on NPR, Kerry's statements seem pretty on-the-money.

"Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia."

-----------

I'm not saying that I think Chavez should be ousted, but he is hardly the darling of the Left that Palast makes him out to be.

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. The people of Venezuela also want a referendum on his presidency.

Why is the great 'democrat' Chavez doing everything within his power to prevent it from taking place? :eyes:

[AP]

10. He's not doing anything to stop the recall.

Can you name one thing he has done? Nope. 'Cause he hasn't done anything.

He doesn't control the CNE. Nobody controls the CNE. And the CNE is going forward with the recall anyway.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. Actually...

The referendum is NOT going forward; it is stalled in the Supreme Court at the moment. The part of the VSC controlled by Chavez has held it up, and it has been referred to the plenary court. Chavez IS doing everything he can to prevent it, just like Bush is trying to keep a lid on Plame, LIHOP/MIHOP, etc. . Any other interpretation of the evnts surropunding the referendum is hopelessly naive, IMO...

[AP]

15. Actually, it did NOT stall. It's going forward. They have to confirm the

signatures according to a procedure as rigorous as the one they used for the non-walk around lists. Now they move forward with that.

The VSC is NOT controlled by Chavez. Half the people on that court are overtly sympathetic to the opposition, and half are just trying to interpret the constitution.

If you think ANY of the SC members are sympathetic to Chavez, let's hear their names and your argument for why they're biased.

The VSC's ruling was that the VSC can not tell the CNE what to do, which, I believe, is in the Constitution. That, or it was a rule that made under constitutional authority. The CNE is an independent body and it isn't' under the control of Chavez either.

Can you give ONE example of something Chavez is doing to try to stop the vote?

There isn't a damn thing.

[Padraig18]

18. He gave you an example, which you chose to ignore.

There are separate parts of the VSC, and the one who DID stall the referendum strongly supports Chavez. just because you choose not to admit that does NOT mean it's untrue. Furthermore, your diversionary tactic of asking for specific names of justices (Get REAL, for fuck's sake!) is just that--- a diversion.

[sistersofmercy]

12. Yes, in the case of Chavez

I believe Kerry did a doublespeak in the case of Chavez. I'm proud that he spoke about the failed coup linked to bushco* but I think he should have said nothing about the referendum. It's a cold oligarchy who has an interest in the the referendum and I don't believe for a minute they have democratic leanings. Having been to Venezuela prior to the election of Chavez, I can tell you the country was in dire need of change. Chavez is a part of the necessary change and I fervently believe another elected official will be a throw back to the process and a victory to the cruel oligarchy who doesn't want change.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Amnesty International on Haiti and Venezuela

Haiti: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-hti/index

Venezuela: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-ven/index

[DrFunkenstein]

14. Human Rights, Shmuman Rights

Chavez can do no wrong, so long as Palast says he don't. It's all about the oligarchy. No popular mandate for the referendum. Maybe the unknown evil would be worse, but denying the Constitutional will of the people is not exactly pro-democratic. So long as the democratic system is maintained, they will have to go through growing pains, just like Brazil or any other nascent democracy has.

[SeattleRob]

16. Chavez

First off, I would be auspicious believing what you hear about Venezuela from the US corporate media - including NPR.

It is very likely the coup of 2002 was sponsored by US and GW's South American War Crimminal, Otto Reich. If you recall, after the coup took place, the US government instantly recognized the new government and the New York Times, that beacon of "liberalism" had an editorial that basically said that it was a good thing that Chavez was overthrown.

The oil Oligarchy owns the media in Venezuela and continually puts out a stream of mis-information.(Does this sound familiar?) One of the untold stories of the failed coup has to do with several small wattage radio stations run by ordinary people. They helped get the word out about the coup, which in turn got people on the streets and democracy restored. (Do you ever wonder why our own FCC is so opposed to low watt community radio?)

For a better perspective on this issue, I would suggest checking out:

http://www.narconews.com

Also look for an amazing Irish produced Documentary, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." (Where are you AP?) A Film crew was on hand as at the presidential palace when the coup took place and record the events. It's one of the most compelling films I've ever seen.


The bottom line is Venezuela has oil. Chavez wants to give some of the money from oil revenues back to the people. The Oil Interests, (see GWB) don't want to part with any of their loot.

[Meshuga]

17. I don't think anybody denies that...

oil is the issue and that the oil interests don't want to part with any of the loot. But that doesn't mean that Chavez's shit don't stink and I think that is the point that Dr.Funk wanted to make.
Oil is part of the equation but not all of it.

There are lots of shady things going on with Chavez and you don't need the US media to try to accentuate it. I also have the same US sources and I read/watch lots of the part of the Brazilian media that is pretty friendly to a very left wing Brazilian president. There is no trust for Chavez by that media either.

The whole problem is that Shrub Fd up by supporting the coup attempt and he actually was able set Chavez as the victim in this story.

[SeattleRob]

20. yes..

Chavez is far from perfect, but he is still committed to Democracy. I am curious about "shady things" about him. Do you have any specifics?

[DrFunkenstein]

29. Bush Made Saddam Look Like A Victim, Too

Which is pretty impressive, considering what a genocidal scumbag he is.

[genius]

19. It's Bush's referendum, not the Venezuelans. It's an attack on democracy.

It's sad to see Kerry on the side of Bush, tyranny and oil corporations and in opposition to human rights, democracy and the decency. Kerry needs to stop trying to be Dick Cheney and start acting like a Democrat where foreign policy is concerned. He blew a lot of votes in Congress the last few years because he was uneducated and uninformed. It's time the world stopped paying for his mistakes. Kerry needs to educate himself on Venezuela before he further attacks democracy and human rights out of blind ignorance.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. How is holding a referndum 'an attack on democracy?'

If the people want to keep Chavez, they will express their will by voting against the recall.

[genius]

23. The names are phoney. Bush's people are writing them in.

It's not a referendum. It's another coup attempt on the part of Bush.

[Padraig18]

24. You can prove that, can you?

I assume you have evidence to back up such a sweeping statement...:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Then I am sure that the voters of Venezuala will recognize it as such

and vote against it. Nothing to worry about. ;)

[SeattleRob]

27. well..

After our election of 2000 debacle and the entire Diebold controversy,
I think any election process has to have enough safeguards to ensure the integrity of the votes. I think the recall referendum issue in Venezuela was about questionable signatures on the petitions. Chavez has been very good following the constitution of Venezuela. In fact, he had several pocket size books of it made and distributed to the people. That is another reason why the oligarchs don't like him - he is encouraging the poor - the vast majority of the population - to particpate in the process.


A common fear of the elites, whether it be in Venezuela or the USA is having the masses participate in the process.

[Nazgul35]

22. Yes...

In the case of Aristide he should put his hands on his hips....

For Chavez he should put one arm around his waist while the other hand slowly strokes his chin...

[DulceDecorum]

26. Zapatero, Chavez and Aristide were the first test

and most of the world now considers Kerry to have failed.

CARICOM and the African Union are in the process of doing everything possible to reverse the coup in Haiti. Meanwhile Condi is threatening Jamaica with weapons of mass destruction because they have given Aristide sanctuary.
And Kerry is not seen to condemn these actions of American aggression.

Do not expect the international community to cooperate with him when he knocks at their doors. Kerry has just burnt up all the goodwill that the world was willing to bestow upon him as the most-welcome successor to the universally-hated George Dubya Bush.

At this point it almost does not matter what the average American says or thinks. The other nations on planet earth have already formed their opinion and Kerry has NOT made a favorable first impression.

[DrFunkenstein]

28. Did You See The NYTimes Article I Linked To?

Actually, Kerry DID condemn those actions of American aggression. And in his statement on Venezuela, he condemned Bush's acquiescence/support of the coup.

And the international community is actually thrilled at the prospect of a Kerry presidency.