Human Rights demonstration, Caracas.
A young man sleeps in the street, in Caracas.There are 200,000 young Venezuelans living like this
in Chavez's socialist paradise.
Dear Mr. Birns (left):
I am appalled at the poor quality of the “analysis”: “Bolivia: a profound breakdown of communication with Latin America” written by you and Ms. R. Rivero and published in your website today, 09-16-2008, www.coha.org . In particular I would like to offer some comments on three of the paragraphs included in this “analysis”. Allow me to start by reminding you of the position maintained by one of your heroes, Hugo Chavez, in connection with the Latin American political situation. Only a few hours ago, in Santiago de Chile, Hugo Chavez reiterated that he would intervene in Bolivia militarily if President Morales was ousted: “Chavez reafirmó sus intenciones de apoyar militarmente a Bolivia si los opositores al gobierno de Morales persisten en su supuesta idea de derrocarlo”. News Agency EFE, September 16, 2008.
Regarding the meeting in Chile the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations, Alejandro Foley, said that Hugo Chavez "made all efforts to sabotage the meeting, asking for condemnation of the U.S." and talking about intervening militarily in Bolivia. Foley said that "some people could really go to extremes to capture attention".
The first of your statements that I would like to comment follows:
“Neither Chavez or Morales can in any manner be condemned for any democratic lapses, lack of human rights observance, nor mistreatment nor abuse of their citizens. You may consider them confrontational non-conformists, or condemn them for their non-adherence to traditional codes of diplomatic behavior, but you cannot cite them for being antipathetic in their behavior towards their own people. Surely there was enough here of democratic substance with which the U.S. could do business”….
This statement shows a very sad ignorance of what Hugo Chavez is doing and has done in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez can certainly be condemned and, in fact, is being condemned in international organizations such as the OAS Committee on Human Rights for numerous violations of human rights in Venezuela. The violations of the constitution by Hugo Chavez are almost daily occurrences. He is an authoritarian, non-democratic president. How can you say, “He cannot be condemned for democratic lapses?”. Such an assertion can only come from someone that has sacrificed his objectivity to passionate ideology or to material gain. Since I think you are not getting paid for this the other alternative is that your strategic hatred of the U.S. government (for reasons that are no concern of mine) has thrown you into the arms of a detestable and ignorant populist tyrant such as Chavez (The enemy of my enemy is my friend). The essential problem with Hugo Chavez is not, as you suggest, that he is a lout (which he is) or that he thinks nothing of insulting opponents in the most vulgar manner (which he does). His basic problem is that he is an undemocratic, populist, highly corrupt political leader who has managed to pilfer some $600 billion in ten years, while Venezuelans have similar poverty levels today to those he found ten years ago, the highest crime rate in the hemisphere (almost 60 violent deaths per 100,000 inhabitants) and its highest inflation rate (will close a over 35% this year), among many other tragic failures of his regime. How can you, therefore, say that he “cannot be cited for being antipathetic in their behavior towards his own people”? I have dozens of photographs of abandoned Venezuelan children sleeping in the streets. Chavez has created a society full of class and racial hate and has based his “social” programs in handouts that do not solve the structural problems of Venezuelan poverty, ill health and ignorance. He is turning them into beggars, dependent on the government Chavez) prodigality. This is cruel and humiliating.
I could say much more and could also talk about the sick relationship between Morales (the client) and Chavez (the patron) but will not do so for the sake of being brief. As for UNASUR, well, I think this action of support for Morales, althoug seemingly by the book, constitutes an intervention on Bolivian affairs. Now, Morales feels supported by the Club of presidents to repress the opposition. He has already put the Pando Mayor in prison, without the deaths being properly investigated. This will lead to more violence and to repression by Morales.
The second paragraph I want to comment is:
“Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) could appear more sensitive and better adapted to regional well-being than any U.S.-crafted free trade agreement with nations that are too weak, like Costa Rica and Panama, to defend their authentic self-interests against subsidized U.S. farm products”.
ALBA is one of the strategies of domination Hugo Chavez is using in Latin America to buy political loyalties. So far, it has had very modest success. Only Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and now Honduras (highly protested by Hondurans) have joined. Chavez has pretended that ALBA becomes a NATO-type or organization, a military alliance against the U.S. but Correa, one of his boys, and other presidents have refused to agree to that. Only President Ortega, of Nicaragua, has agreed. I will not discuss the merits (or, lack of) of the FTA’s crafted by the U.S. but I just want to say, most emphatically, that ALBA is no true trade agreement but a political construct that is going nowhere.
The third paragraph I want to comment on is the following:
“Reckless and greedy same plan of the pro-autonomy leaders in Bolivia might have provided a compelling reason for the secessionists to preserve order and avoid the violence which, tragically, has already claimed upwards of thirty lives”.
In your “analysis” you make no attempt at looking into the causes of the Bolivian political crisis. You have already decided that the situation is due to the “reckless and greedy” attitude of the “secessionists”. Using a racist tone you call the Bolivian opposition “europerized”, glossing over the fact that the Bolivian opposition is made up of peoples from all skin color, economic status and cultural backgrounds. You have made no attempt at looking at the roots of the problem. Of course, the peoples from the lowlands have always felt distrust of the people form the highlands. This also happens in Venezuela (costeños versus andinos), in Colombia and in Ecuador. In Bolivia this has been increased by the pretensions of Morales to rule with his groups, excluding other groups, even Indian groups, not necessarily the “Europeans”. Morales has tried to impose a constitution that does not reflect a social, much less a political consensus. Morale is trying to utilize the rich resources for the Bolivian lowlands for the benefit of a part of the nation, his part. The autonomic, not secessionist, movement is full of hard working Bolivians but for you they are just greedy. I have seen Morales receiving checks of Venezuelan money and distributing them among his followers. He has said: “When they tell me something is illegal I call my lawyer to make it legal”, reacting to the criticism of his receiving Venezuelan money without this money being processed through the proper institutions. This is how thwy think, Chavez and Morales, your heroes.
I am frankly disgusted by your work. For some time now you have abandoned all pretenses of being an objective analyst. Your credibility as the leader of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs is highly compromised. Your ideological or partisan differences with the U.S. government should not force you into the camp of corrupt, populist, undemocratic, even immoral Latin American political leaders. To oppose Bush you don't have to idolize political gangsters like Hugo Chavez.
Best regards,
Gustavo Coronel
I am appalled at the poor quality of the “analysis”: “Bolivia: a profound breakdown of communication with Latin America” written by you and Ms. R. Rivero and published in your website today, 09-16-2008, www.coha.org . In particular I would like to offer some comments on three of the paragraphs included in this “analysis”. Allow me to start by reminding you of the position maintained by one of your heroes, Hugo Chavez, in connection with the Latin American political situation. Only a few hours ago, in Santiago de Chile, Hugo Chavez reiterated that he would intervene in Bolivia militarily if President Morales was ousted: “Chavez reafirmó sus intenciones de apoyar militarmente a Bolivia si los opositores al gobierno de Morales persisten en su supuesta idea de derrocarlo”. News Agency EFE, September 16, 2008.
Regarding the meeting in Chile the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations, Alejandro Foley, said that Hugo Chavez "made all efforts to sabotage the meeting, asking for condemnation of the U.S." and talking about intervening militarily in Bolivia. Foley said that "some people could really go to extremes to capture attention".
The first of your statements that I would like to comment follows:
“Neither Chavez or Morales can in any manner be condemned for any democratic lapses, lack of human rights observance, nor mistreatment nor abuse of their citizens. You may consider them confrontational non-conformists, or condemn them for their non-adherence to traditional codes of diplomatic behavior, but you cannot cite them for being antipathetic in their behavior towards their own people. Surely there was enough here of democratic substance with which the U.S. could do business”….
This statement shows a very sad ignorance of what Hugo Chavez is doing and has done in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez can certainly be condemned and, in fact, is being condemned in international organizations such as the OAS Committee on Human Rights for numerous violations of human rights in Venezuela. The violations of the constitution by Hugo Chavez are almost daily occurrences. He is an authoritarian, non-democratic president. How can you say, “He cannot be condemned for democratic lapses?”. Such an assertion can only come from someone that has sacrificed his objectivity to passionate ideology or to material gain. Since I think you are not getting paid for this the other alternative is that your strategic hatred of the U.S. government (for reasons that are no concern of mine) has thrown you into the arms of a detestable and ignorant populist tyrant such as Chavez (The enemy of my enemy is my friend). The essential problem with Hugo Chavez is not, as you suggest, that he is a lout (which he is) or that he thinks nothing of insulting opponents in the most vulgar manner (which he does). His basic problem is that he is an undemocratic, populist, highly corrupt political leader who has managed to pilfer some $600 billion in ten years, while Venezuelans have similar poverty levels today to those he found ten years ago, the highest crime rate in the hemisphere (almost 60 violent deaths per 100,000 inhabitants) and its highest inflation rate (will close a over 35% this year), among many other tragic failures of his regime. How can you, therefore, say that he “cannot be cited for being antipathetic in their behavior towards his own people”? I have dozens of photographs of abandoned Venezuelan children sleeping in the streets. Chavez has created a society full of class and racial hate and has based his “social” programs in handouts that do not solve the structural problems of Venezuelan poverty, ill health and ignorance. He is turning them into beggars, dependent on the government Chavez) prodigality. This is cruel and humiliating.
I could say much more and could also talk about the sick relationship between Morales (the client) and Chavez (the patron) but will not do so for the sake of being brief. As for UNASUR, well, I think this action of support for Morales, althoug seemingly by the book, constitutes an intervention on Bolivian affairs. Now, Morales feels supported by the Club of presidents to repress the opposition. He has already put the Pando Mayor in prison, without the deaths being properly investigated. This will lead to more violence and to repression by Morales.
The second paragraph I want to comment is:
“Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) could appear more sensitive and better adapted to regional well-being than any U.S.-crafted free trade agreement with nations that are too weak, like Costa Rica and Panama, to defend their authentic self-interests against subsidized U.S. farm products”.
ALBA is one of the strategies of domination Hugo Chavez is using in Latin America to buy political loyalties. So far, it has had very modest success. Only Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and now Honduras (highly protested by Hondurans) have joined. Chavez has pretended that ALBA becomes a NATO-type or organization, a military alliance against the U.S. but Correa, one of his boys, and other presidents have refused to agree to that. Only President Ortega, of Nicaragua, has agreed. I will not discuss the merits (or, lack of) of the FTA’s crafted by the U.S. but I just want to say, most emphatically, that ALBA is no true trade agreement but a political construct that is going nowhere.
The third paragraph I want to comment on is the following:
“Reckless and greedy same plan of the pro-autonomy leaders in Bolivia might have provided a compelling reason for the secessionists to preserve order and avoid the violence which, tragically, has already claimed upwards of thirty lives”.
In your “analysis” you make no attempt at looking into the causes of the Bolivian political crisis. You have already decided that the situation is due to the “reckless and greedy” attitude of the “secessionists”. Using a racist tone you call the Bolivian opposition “europerized”, glossing over the fact that the Bolivian opposition is made up of peoples from all skin color, economic status and cultural backgrounds. You have made no attempt at looking at the roots of the problem. Of course, the peoples from the lowlands have always felt distrust of the people form the highlands. This also happens in Venezuela (costeños versus andinos), in Colombia and in Ecuador. In Bolivia this has been increased by the pretensions of Morales to rule with his groups, excluding other groups, even Indian groups, not necessarily the “Europeans”. Morales has tried to impose a constitution that does not reflect a social, much less a political consensus. Morale is trying to utilize the rich resources for the Bolivian lowlands for the benefit of a part of the nation, his part. The autonomic, not secessionist, movement is full of hard working Bolivians but for you they are just greedy. I have seen Morales receiving checks of Venezuelan money and distributing them among his followers. He has said: “When they tell me something is illegal I call my lawyer to make it legal”, reacting to the criticism of his receiving Venezuelan money without this money being processed through the proper institutions. This is how thwy think, Chavez and Morales, your heroes.
I am frankly disgusted by your work. For some time now you have abandoned all pretenses of being an objective analyst. Your credibility as the leader of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs is highly compromised. Your ideological or partisan differences with the U.S. government should not force you into the camp of corrupt, populist, undemocratic, even immoral Latin American political leaders. To oppose Bush you don't have to idolize political gangsters like Hugo Chavez.
Best regards,
Gustavo Coronel
1 comentario:
Mr. Birns may not be paid by the venezuelan government. Not yet.
Publicar un comentario