I always thought of South America as a haven for communists, progressives and other "revolutionaries", among from being a naturally beautiful continent where many Arabs, Lebanese and Palestinian especially, have emigrated over the past century. Apart from Chile and Argentina, a country that has suddenly come into the spotlight in the past decade is Venezuela. Why Venezuela? According to the CIA World Factbook, Venezuela appeals to the common man as a strategic location. It is full of natural resources, among them petrol, oil, natural gas, diamonds and bauxite. The country itself is a major hub for both sea and air trade routes, via the Carribean and the major River Orinoco.
But that's how, sadly, the rightwing see Venezuela: an advantage and a beacon from where they can spread their Manifest Destiny and thus hegemonic control over other nations, including Venezuela itself, that resist the aims of neocon imperialism. What really pissed off the neocons was the re-election of the much-beloved Hugo Chavez, head of the Fifth Republic Movement in Venezuela. He strikes me as a leftist, though he might be a rightwinger in terms of his country's political system. Chavez has a noted history of turning down American offers and resisting accusations thrown at him by the "elite" neocon gang at the Capitol and the White House. Rumsfeld really cracked my ribs when he said that Chavez was "worse than Hitler", for example, to which Chavez replied comically that Hitler was a "baby next to Bush". As a non-partisan, I tend to be skeptical, even cynical of politicians, even those who are facing a common enemy or have views very close to mine. While I admire Chavez for standing up against American interventionism and terrorism, he certainly wasn't the first. Truly, the Americans are scheming against him?
It wasn't long before I saw this article on Voltaire-NET that I started thinking that most certainly are Washington's cronies setting their eyes on Venezuela, not only for ousting Chavez and installing an American puppet, but for the noted reasons above. Salim Lamrani cites a report from the Pentagon which claims that people like Chavez, who are supposedly authoritarian (Chavez has socialist values), are the "source of political and economic stability". Never mind that Chavez has support of at least 71% of the local population, so technically such calls against Chavez are unfounded. Moreover, Venezuela has allies in the region, most notably Evo Morales of Bolivia, Venezuela's neighbor, and pretty much most third world nations (which Bush Sr. called the "little guys" or something of that sort). Chavez at the moment seems untouchable.
However, Salim Lamrani of Voltaire-NET, in the same source provided above, paints another picture. He reminds us of the regional U.S. ally in the region: Chile, ruled by the notorious capitalist dictator, Augusto Pinochet. This old man, Pinochet, is an vowed enemy of socialism and socialists alike (while I am both anti-Communist and anti-Fascist, I'd rather be a socialist than a fascist). After the overthrow of Salvatore Allende, Pinochet rounded up many opponents to his regime (whom he referred to as "terrorists"), and sent them to stadiums and other facilities that have been converted to concentration camps and torture chambers. There, people were beaten up, and tortured to death, sometimes electrocuted on sensitive parts that need not be mentioned. Anyways, getting back to the issue at hand, we can see that a country like Venezuela, while in a good position amongst the Third World, is standing in a dangerous position. Chile, according to Lamrani, is being supplied with weapons. This was given to Chile as an indication, and somewhat a threat to its leadership if it were to establish ties with the Venezuelan government. Under the new leadership of Michele Bachelet, Chile is now at a crossroads and has to choose between Caracas (Venezuela, and thus Chavez) and Washington (Zionist lobby, neocon capital, whatever you want to call it... Bush).
The ISN published a report on this developing issue. Sam Logan of ISN Security Watch claimed that the issue arose after Chile's decision to nominate Venezuela to the UNSC (the United Nations Security Council). Why this is a threat confuses me: there are many nations that vote for or against certain resolutions, but the U.S., despite being a lone star ranger on the Security Council table, still has the much hated veto card. I think it was because Chavez claimed that the U.S. is the controller of the U.N., which it is. Moreover, Bachelet and her socialist party are supportive of Venezuela's candidacy and government, even though Chile has not been quite nice in the past. Furthermore, Chile is strategic to both Venezuela and Washington: despite the corrupt dictatorship of Pinochet, Chile has become a successful beacon of capitalist economy in South America... somewhat an "example" to follow. Whatever the case, it will prove to be interesting, and might end with a possible military takeover of Venezuela on part of Washington, and possibly the rise of another Pinochet-like dictator. Oh, well... I guess that whatever resists American "democracy" and "freedom" should be rooted out?
I suppose Israel would be wanting him removed as well. Just today, Chavez announced that he has withdrew the Venezuelan ambassador to Israel from Tel Aviv. This came as a complete surprise to me: none of the Arab governments have done the same for their ambassadors, especially when it's done to send a message to Israel's government. Although I might not entirely agree with him that Israel is committing "fascism", Israel certainly doesn't control its temper when trying to achieve its own ends, and to it, the ends justifies the means... so, yeah, I can see why he called Israel's actions as akin to fascism. But he also said something else that caught my ears: "It's hard to explain to oneself how nobody does anything to stop this horror." Certainly, the U.N. and many world leaders have lost their conscience, or are seemingly so as the U.S. and Israel have shown that they have both lost it. Chavez, it seems, can prove to be a staunch leader of the Third World, though many people in Latin America outside Venezuela seem to think otherwise.
Whatever it is, I just hope for the best, either way. I am not supportive of Chavez as a politician: he leans towards authoritarian and socialist ideals, which do not conform to mine; I'm not supportive of any one politician in general anyways, even the Palestinian leadership. I have had enough of seeing politicians use their position for their own ends. I want to see statesmen, who can stand up for their people and show the world that they can serve their people selflessly. If Chavez can truly stand up to American imperialist demands, I applaud him, but for now, I reserve my judgement.
Salaam, from
Saracen
News Update: Israel killed 33 farm workers (the article reports only the incident, but the death toll has risen) in the Qaa region just west of the Lebanese-Syrian border. Where is humanity when you need it?
But that's how, sadly, the rightwing see Venezuela: an advantage and a beacon from where they can spread their Manifest Destiny and thus hegemonic control over other nations, including Venezuela itself, that resist the aims of neocon imperialism. What really pissed off the neocons was the re-election of the much-beloved Hugo Chavez, head of the Fifth Republic Movement in Venezuela. He strikes me as a leftist, though he might be a rightwinger in terms of his country's political system. Chavez has a noted history of turning down American offers and resisting accusations thrown at him by the "elite" neocon gang at the Capitol and the White House. Rumsfeld really cracked my ribs when he said that Chavez was "worse than Hitler", for example, to which Chavez replied comically that Hitler was a "baby next to Bush". As a non-partisan, I tend to be skeptical, even cynical of politicians, even those who are facing a common enemy or have views very close to mine. While I admire Chavez for standing up against American interventionism and terrorism, he certainly wasn't the first. Truly, the Americans are scheming against him?
It wasn't long before I saw this article on Voltaire-NET that I started thinking that most certainly are Washington's cronies setting their eyes on Venezuela, not only for ousting Chavez and installing an American puppet, but for the noted reasons above. Salim Lamrani cites a report from the Pentagon which claims that people like Chavez, who are supposedly authoritarian (Chavez has socialist values), are the "source of political and economic stability". Never mind that Chavez has support of at least 71% of the local population, so technically such calls against Chavez are unfounded. Moreover, Venezuela has allies in the region, most notably Evo Morales of Bolivia, Venezuela's neighbor, and pretty much most third world nations (which Bush Sr. called the "little guys" or something of that sort). Chavez at the moment seems untouchable.
However, Salim Lamrani of Voltaire-NET, in the same source provided above, paints another picture. He reminds us of the regional U.S. ally in the region: Chile, ruled by the notorious capitalist dictator, Augusto Pinochet. This old man, Pinochet, is an vowed enemy of socialism and socialists alike (while I am both anti-Communist and anti-Fascist, I'd rather be a socialist than a fascist). After the overthrow of Salvatore Allende, Pinochet rounded up many opponents to his regime (whom he referred to as "terrorists"), and sent them to stadiums and other facilities that have been converted to concentration camps and torture chambers. There, people were beaten up, and tortured to death, sometimes electrocuted on sensitive parts that need not be mentioned. Anyways, getting back to the issue at hand, we can see that a country like Venezuela, while in a good position amongst the Third World, is standing in a dangerous position. Chile, according to Lamrani, is being supplied with weapons. This was given to Chile as an indication, and somewhat a threat to its leadership if it were to establish ties with the Venezuelan government. Under the new leadership of Michele Bachelet, Chile is now at a crossroads and has to choose between Caracas (Venezuela, and thus Chavez) and Washington (Zionist lobby, neocon capital, whatever you want to call it... Bush).
The ISN published a report on this developing issue. Sam Logan of ISN Security Watch claimed that the issue arose after Chile's decision to nominate Venezuela to the UNSC (the United Nations Security Council). Why this is a threat confuses me: there are many nations that vote for or against certain resolutions, but the U.S., despite being a lone star ranger on the Security Council table, still has the much hated veto card. I think it was because Chavez claimed that the U.S. is the controller of the U.N., which it is. Moreover, Bachelet and her socialist party are supportive of Venezuela's candidacy and government, even though Chile has not been quite nice in the past. Furthermore, Chile is strategic to both Venezuela and Washington: despite the corrupt dictatorship of Pinochet, Chile has become a successful beacon of capitalist economy in South America... somewhat an "example" to follow. Whatever the case, it will prove to be interesting, and might end with a possible military takeover of Venezuela on part of Washington, and possibly the rise of another Pinochet-like dictator. Oh, well... I guess that whatever resists American "democracy" and "freedom" should be rooted out?
I suppose Israel would be wanting him removed as well. Just today, Chavez announced that he has withdrew the Venezuelan ambassador to Israel from Tel Aviv. This came as a complete surprise to me: none of the Arab governments have done the same for their ambassadors, especially when it's done to send a message to Israel's government. Although I might not entirely agree with him that Israel is committing "fascism", Israel certainly doesn't control its temper when trying to achieve its own ends, and to it, the ends justifies the means... so, yeah, I can see why he called Israel's actions as akin to fascism. But he also said something else that caught my ears: "It's hard to explain to oneself how nobody does anything to stop this horror." Certainly, the U.N. and many world leaders have lost their conscience, or are seemingly so as the U.S. and Israel have shown that they have both lost it. Chavez, it seems, can prove to be a staunch leader of the Third World, though many people in Latin America outside Venezuela seem to think otherwise.
Whatever it is, I just hope for the best, either way. I am not supportive of Chavez as a politician: he leans towards authoritarian and socialist ideals, which do not conform to mine; I'm not supportive of any one politician in general anyways, even the Palestinian leadership. I have had enough of seeing politicians use their position for their own ends. I want to see statesmen, who can stand up for their people and show the world that they can serve their people selflessly. If Chavez can truly stand up to American imperialist demands, I applaud him, but for now, I reserve my judgement.
Salaam, from
Saracen
News Update: Israel killed 33 farm workers (the article reports only the incident, but the death toll has risen) in the Qaa region just west of the Lebanese-Syrian border. Where is humanity when you need it?
Comments
Post a Comment