Kerry adopts language of Fascists re: Venezuela

[Moses]

www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4626832

Mon Mar 22, 2004 06:33 PM ET

By Pascal Fletcher

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a dubious democrat hostile to U.S. interests, delivering a slap in the face to the leftist leader who had portrayed Kerry as a potential friend.

The Kerry statement on his Web site made front-page news in Venezuela on Monday, nearly two weeks after Chavez had publicly praised the Democrat contender, hailing his health care plans and likening him to assassinated U.S. President John Kennedy.

In his declaration dated March 19, the Massachusetts senator accused Chavez of undermining Venezuela's democracy, supporting Colombian rebels and "narco-terrorists" and trying to torpedo a constitutional bid by foes to hold a referendum on his rule.

Condemning Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests," Kerry said the United States should lead international pressure to persuade him to allow a recall vote.

Venezuelan officials did not immediately respond.

Political analysts said the harsh condemnation of the populist Venezuelan leader aimed to tell him he should not consider Kerry an ideological soul mate united through their opposition to President Bush.

"This gives no reassurance to Chavez. I don't think he's going to find a lot of sympathy from Kerry and the statement makes that clear," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank.

Relations between Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, and its main petroleum client have been strained by Bush administration criticism of Chavez's self-styled "revolution," his friendship with Cuba's Communist President Fidel Castro and his resistance to the referendum challenge.

Chavez, a former paratrooper elected in 1998, has repeatedly condemned Bush's trade and foreign policies as "imperialist" and accused the U.S. government of trying to topple him, a charge denied by Washington.

'MIXED SIGNALS'

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jesus Perez said in an interview published on Monday his country's relations with the United States could not be worse and would improve if Bush lost the November election.

Perez told El Universal newspaper Bush was to blame for the tense ties "because of his hostile statements."
But Kerry's declaration firmly quashed Chavez's apparent hopes of a more friendly U.S. policy if Kerry won in November.

"It separates his image from that of Chavez, and it's not just a distancing, it's a clear break," said Venezuelan political analyst and author Alberto Garrido.

Analysts said Kerry's criticism went well beyond a U.S. campaign tactic to win votes in key states like Florida, where anti-Castro and anti-Chavez sentiment is strong among exiled Cubans and Venezuelans.

Kerry said Chavez's "close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government."

But his statement also chided the Bush administration for sending "mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere," saying it had "acquiesced" to a brief 2002 coup against Chavez. Washington denies it was involved in the coup.

"Kerry is saying there is a lot at stake in Venezuela and that we need to be engaged and firm. He's trying to show he's not a wimpy democrat, that he's a tough-minded, hard-headed guy," Shifter said.

[Moses]

Commentary:


I just got done sending this out with comments to people in my e-mail list and I came to the same conclusion.


"In his declaration dated March 19, the Massachusetts senator accused Chavez of undermining Venezuela's democracy, supporting Colombian rebels and "narco-terrorists" and trying to torpedo a constitutional bid by foes to hold a referendum on his rule."

The "narco-terrorists" was a nice touch, but "narco-terrorists" is term coined by Ashcroft in his proposed Patriot Act II and the neo-cons in this administration. This shows Kerry is in agreement with their law enforcement policies. Linking Chavez to Colombian rebels was a bit tried by Powell and his psychotic neo-con undersecretary John Bolton to spread disinformation in the media about Chavez. It also shows Kerry is in agreement with neo-con diplomacy.

"Condemning Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests," Kerry said the United States should lead international pressure to persuade him to allow a recall vote."

I think this statement is key because these are Kerry's code words to the corporations saying I will continue in the U.S. tradition of upholding your profits from sweatshop labor and dead people.

"Political analysts said the harsh condemnation of the populist Venezuelan leader aimed to tell him he should not consider Kerry an ideological soul mate united through their opposition to President Bush."

Chavez has helped Venezuela's poor. He doubled royalties U.S. oil companies pay for using Venezuela's oil drilling facilities and used these funds to provide building materials and food for Venezuela's poor. Before Chavez, 90% of Venzuela's land was in the hands of 6% of its people. Chavez redistributed land to provide people their own land and housing. In essense, Kerry is telling the poor of the U.S. to eat cake.

"Analysts said Kerry's criticism went well beyond a U.S. campaign tactic to win votes in key states like Florida, where anti-Castro and anti-Chavez sentiment is strong among exiled Cubans and Venezuelans."

Once again, why do the Democrats give a flying fig about the Batista Cuban vote in Miami?! They're going to vote for Bush anyway and the Democrats do not have a chance at winning any of those votes. Why? What the hell is wrong with the Democrats? Do they like losing? This is like Kerry's wishy washy position on gay marriage: let's not make gay mariage an issue, he said, because he was afraid of offending the teetotaling Bible thumper vote, people who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place. This is what the Democratic Party has been reduced to, a bunch of pandering idiots.

"Kerry said Chavez's "close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government."

Translation: Castro chose the wrong side in the Cold War; however, if he was our son-of-a-pregnant dog he'd be the greatest leader in the Carribean. Who do the Democrats think they're fooling that they honestly care about the country of Cuba?

"But his statement also chided the Bush administration for sending "mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere," saying it had "acquiesced" to a brief 2002 coup against Chavez."

Is Kerry serious?! Has he paying attention the whole time he's been on the Foreign Relations Committee? The U.S. was BEHIND the coup in Venezuela in 2002. You cannot "acquiesce" to something you helped plan.

"Kerry is saying there is a lot at stake in Venezuela"

Translation: oil and corporate profits

"and that we need to be engaged and firm. He's trying to show he's not a wimpy democrat, that he's a tough-minded, hard-headed guy," Shifter said.

No, Kerry has only shown he's an idiot and corporate ass kisser; a true member of the DLC.

[Moses]

If this is how Kerry truly feels, if he's elected he should keep Otto Reich and John Negroponte on, too.

[Moses]

www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1136

A Rebuttal to Senator Kerry’s Statement on Venezuela
Monday, Mar 22, 2004

By: Gregory Wilpert - Venezuelanalysis.com

Senator Kerry’s press statement was issued on March 19, 2004.

Italic text is Senator Kerry’s statement. Plain text is Gregory Wilpert’s rebuttal.

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.

It is not up to President Chavez whether there is a referendum. Venezuela’s constitution clearly establishes rules that must be followed for a referendum to be called. The president has nothing to do with this procedure. If Kerry has any evidence that Chavez is preventing the referendum process from proceeding, then he should spell out what it is that he has done.

The [Bush] Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

U.S. interference in Venezuela’s referendum process will distort and damage Venezuela’s democracy more than help it. If there is outside interference, it is more likely that the results of the process will not be recognized as legitimate  by one of the sides in the conflict and this would probably lead to violence, not to “a peaceful resolution.”<br>
Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power.

How does Kerry know that the incarcerations of some protestors were politically motivated? As the cases stand right now, it has not been clearly established that any of the arrests that have occurred during the recent spate of violent protests involved people who were innocent of all charges. As the cases proceed and come to trial, there will be plenty of opportunities to find out if this was the case. To prejudge the arrests as Sen. Kerry does, does not help.

In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

If relationships with undemocratic rulers are enough to question a leader’s commitment to democracy, then the commitment to democracy of just about every president in U.S. history must be questioned.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors.

Exactly what “our interests” is is of course a much disputed issue. If it includes Venezuela’s opposition to the WTO and the FTAA, then, indeed, President Chavez’ interests have been detrimental to U.S. interests. However, many in the U.S. and in Latin America would argue that these institutions are not in the U.S. interest, but only in the interest of transnational corporations, such as the one that Senator Kerry’s wife is heiress to (Heinz Ketchup). Besides, governments are not there to pursue U.S. interests anyway, no matter where they are; only national and human interests.

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.

Sen. Kerry stands in direct contradiction with U.S. government testimony that says that the Venezuelan government has been very cooperative with US drug enforcement agencies. More drugs have been intercepted by the Chavez government than any previous government. While this could reflect in increase in drug trafficking in Venezuela, it proves that Venezuela’s government has far from “compromised efforts.”[1]

Even the head of the U.S. Southern Command, Gen. James Hill, who is directly involved in plan Colombia and the U.S. anti-drug trafficking effort, has denied that there is any evidence of connections between the Venezuelan government and “anti-government insurgents” in Colombia.[2] If Senator Kerry has any evidence of such connections, he should provide them to the U.S. military so that they might be properly informed.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means.

Perhaps it would have been good to mention at this point that the recall referendum was proposed by President Chavez and his party when the country’s constitutional assembly wrote the new constitution. This fact directly contradicts Sen. Kerry’s questioning of President Chavez’ democratic credentials.

The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far.

Without mentioning concrete examples of President Chavez’ supposed efforts to “subvert” the referendum process, Sen. Kerry’s statement is pure innuendo that intends to slander a head of state.

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.

First, the agreement Sen. Kerry refers to here was not made with the OAS and the Carter Center, but with the opposition. The OAS and Carter Center acted as facilitators for this agreement. Second, the agreement does not mention the recall referendum at all. Rather, it calls on both sides to reject violence and to support the constitution. While there has been some debate in Venezuela as to who started the violent protests, there is much evidence that members of the opposition sought out a violent confrontation with state security forces. As for respecting the right to freedom of expression, there is complete and total freedom of expression in Venezuela, more than at any point in Venezuela’s history. Finally, with regard to political prisoners, this is a term that Venezuela’s opposition uses for them, but one which internationally recognized human rights organizations have yet to adopt. As such, Senator Kerry is placing himself as a solid supporter of Venezuela’s opposition, which does not bode well for future relations between the government of Venezuela and a possible President Kerry.

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.

Actually, the Bush administration’s signals with respect to undemocratic processes has not been mixed at all: as long as the undemocratic processes favor the Bush administration’s policy interests, it will support them. It is Senator Kerry who is sending mixed signals by issuing a statement like this, one which does not give Venezuela’s referendum process a chance to play itself out, which makes unsubstantiated claims about the Chavez government, and which encourages a recall referendum even when it is not yet clearly established that the requisite number of Venezuelan citizens want one.

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.

Allowing a “democratically elected leader to be cast aside” in Venezuela via a possibly fraudulent recall referendum process would be little different from what happened in Haiti. It would destroy what has actually become a more vigorous democracy in Venezuela than ever. More people are involved in Venezuela’s political institutions now than before, from land reform committees, to local participatory planning councils, to public accountability efforts (“contraloria social”). This week thousands of candidates are being nominated for August regional elections of governors, mayors, state legislators, and city council persons. There have been absolutely no limitations on anyone’s ability to participate.

The only reason Venezuela’s democracy is in danger is because opposition forces have never accepted President Chavez as the legitimately elected president and have tried to undermine his presidency via a coup attempt and a politically motivated shut-down of the country’s all-important oil industry – an act that would have been considered completely illegal in any country in the world (and for which no one in Venezuela has been imprisoned). It is due to these acts of the opposition that President Chavez and his supporters are so suspicious of the signatures that were recently collected for the recall referendum. The best way to ensure that Venezuelan democracy remains strong is by making sure that all sides agree that the referendum is legitimate. This is the main reason why the process has been taking so long.

By issuing this statement, Senator Kerry is clearly taking sides in Venezuela’s conflict and is supporting the opposition. As such, he is placing himself to the right of President Bush, who has so far only supported Venezuela’s opposition more or less covertly.